Development Management Plan (Regulation 19)

Traveller Site Land Availability Assessment (TSLAA) December 2017

Updated May 2018

List of updates between Reg 19 Publication version and Submission

Table 4 Deletion of EW12 – already ruled out at Table 3

Throughout Former Territorial Army Site, Linkfield House – re- numbered RW23 (from RW20) due to number duplication

Land at the Priory – renumbered TW16 (from TW11) due to number duplication Paragraph 5.15 Delete the following – this is covered in the viability report:

“Provision of land for Traveller accommodation within SUEs will reduce the developable area for conventional housing. As stated above there is a need to ensure that, coupled with other policy requirements, this additional burden would not compromise the achievement of viable development on any site. It is therefore considered that a proposed rate of 1 pitch per 70 homes would present a viable rate of delivery this rate is considered to represent a cost equivalent to approximately 2% of total development costs – including land and profit) – see the viability report for more information. This will be rounded up or down to the nearest pitch.”

G4: Treetops/Trentham Correction – changed from 1 pitch to 2 pitches in line with original assessment

Executive Summary

The Traveller Site Land Availability Assessment (TSLAA) is part of the Development Management Plan (DMP) evidence base. Its purpose is to assess the availability of suitable and sustainable sites to meet the needs for pitches and plots for Travellers in Reigate & Banstead borough.

The aim of the TSLAA is to establish realistic assumptions about the availability, suitability, and likely economic viability of land to accommodate Traveller sites over the current plan period to 2027. The Government’s Planning Policy for Traveller Sites (as amended August 2015) (PPTS) seeks to encourage local planning authorities to identify land to accommodate Traveller sites and to plan for sites over a reasonable timescale. In plan-making, the PPTS sets out that local planning authorities should identify a supply of specific deliverable sites to deliver five years’ worth of sites, and identify a supply of specific developable sites or broad locations for growth for years 6-10 and, where possible, for years 11-15.

Reigate & Banstead Borough Council Traveller SHLAA 2017

This assessment adopts broadly the same process as that used for the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA) – now known as the Housing and Economic Land Availability Assessment (HELAA) - produced by the Council for ‘bricks-and-mortar’ housing. The study follows relevant advice set out in the National Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG) and takes account of the requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and PPTS 2015, where relevant.

Reigate & Banstead Borough Council Traveller SHLAA 2017

Disclaimer

Reigate & Banstead Borough Council makes the following disclaimer relating to this Traveller Site Land Availability Assessment (TSLAA).

• The identification of land as having potential to accommodate Traveller provision in the TSLAA does not imply that the Council will grant planning permission for sites on this land, or allocate the land for such uses within the Local Plan. All planning applications will continue to be determined against the current development plan and any material planning considerations, including the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and Planning Policy for Traveller Sites, 2015 (PPTS, 2015).

• The identification of land as being suitable and available for Traveller provision within the TSLAA does not preclude it being allocated or developed for other uses.

• The exclusion of sites from the TSLAA (through assessment) or the omission of sites (perhaps because they were never identified) does not preclude the possibility of planning permission being granted on those sites for Traveller provision. The Council acknowledges that appropriate sites may come forward as planning applications even if they have not been previously identified.

• The TSLAA does not set policy or precedent, but provides background evidence on the potential availability of sites for forward planning purposes including sites which have been put forward by other organisations and individuals for evaluation. Therefore statements would require further confirmation before achieving any status as material planning considerations to support the determination of any planning application.

• The site boundaries in the TSLAA have been informed by the best information available at the time of study. Identification in the TSLAA precludes an expansion or contraction of these boundaries for the purpose of a planning application or future allocation through the Local Plan process.

• The determination of a site’s deliverability/developability has been informed by the best information available at the time. Assumptions made in the TSLAA will not prevent planning applications being submitted on any site at any time.

• The estimation of potential pitch capacity has been informed by the best information available at the time and with reference to the PPTS and best practice guidance set out in Designing Gypsy and Traveller Sites (DGTS) (May 2008). Whilst the DGTS was withdrawn in September 2015, it still forms a material planning consideration. The potential indicated in this report does not preclude the number of pitches on a site being increased or decreased, subject to further information and assessment at such time as a planning application is made.

Reigate & Banstead Borough Council Traveller SHLAA 2017

• The Council does not accept liability for any factual inaccuracies or omissions in the TSLAA. It should be acknowledged that there may be additional constraints on sites that are not included within this document, and that planning applications will continue to be determined on their own merits rather than on the information contained within this document. Issues may arise during the planning application process that were not or could not have been foreseen at the time of publication of the TSLAA. Applicants are advised to carry out their own analysis of site constraints for the purposes of planning applications and should not rely on information contained within this TSLAA.

Reigate & Banstead Borough Council Traveller SHLAA 2017

Contents

1. Introduction ...... Page 07

2. Policy context ...... Page 07

- The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) - Planning Policy for Traveller Sites 2015 (PPTS) - National Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG) - The Development Management Plan (DMP) - The Core Strategy - The Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation Assessment (GTAA)

3. Identification of sites for assessment……………………………………… ....Page 12

- Site sources

4. Site assessments……………………………………………………………… Page 13

- Stage 1: Site size - Table 1: Sites smaller than 0.06 ha in size - Stage 2: Screening process – absolute constraints - Table 2: Sites excluded from further consideration (absolute constraints) - Stage 3: Assessing suitability and development potential - Table 3: Site suitability conclusions - Stage 4: Availability and achievability - Table 4: Site availability conclusions

5. Green Belt Reviews: potential sites……………………………………………Page 67

- Table 5: Suitable and available sites - Reviews: o G9a: Land at Fairacres, Axes Lane, Salfords (1) o G9b: Land at Fairacres, Axes Lane, Salfords (2) o G13: Land west of Plot 4, Fairacres, Axes Lane, Salfords o BV16: Land south of Woodmansterne Lane, Banstead o BV18: Land south of Croydon Lane, Banstead (Parcel Option A) o BV18: Land south of Croydon Lane, Banstead (Parcel Option B) o G3: Woodlea Stables, Peeks Brook Lane, Horley o G4: Treetops/Trentham, Peek Brook Lane, Horley o G6: Land at Crossoak Lane/Picketts Lane, Salfords o G12: Land at Kents Field, Rectory Lane, Chipstead - Need and supply

6. Assessment: potential of broad locations ...... Page 90

- Sustainable Urban Extensions (SUE)

Reigate & Banstead Borough Council Traveller SHLAA 2017

- Table 7: Potential delivery of pitches/plots through Sustainable Urban Extensions (SUE) - Potential pitch/plot capacity and estimated need?

List of Tables

Table 1: Sites smaller than 0.06 ha in size ...... 14 Table 2: Sites excluded from further consideration (absolute constraints) ...... 14 Table 3: Site suitability conclusions ...... 18 Table 4: Site availability conclusions ...... 53 Table 5: Suitable and available sites ...... 67 Table 6: Sites suitable for further consideration as Traveller sites ...... 89 Table 7: Potential delivery of pitches/plots through Sustainable Urban Extensions (SUE) ...... 91

Reigate & Banstead Borough Council Traveller SHLAA 2017

1. Introduction

1.1 This Traveller Strategic Land Availability Assessment (TSLAA) sets out an assessment of the suitability, availability, and achievability of sites to address Traveller accommodation needs in Reigate & Banstead borough. It has been carried out in accordance with the requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), and Planning Policy for Traveller Sites (as amended August 2015) (PPTS, 2015), and takes account of advice within the National Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG).

1.2 This document forms part of the evidence base for the Development Management Plan (DMP) and informs preferred site allocations for Traveller accommodation. It should be read alongside the Council’s Housing and Economic Land Availability Assessment (HELAA), which assesses sites for ‘bricks-and-mortar’ housing, which have also been used as a potential source for Travellers sites. It should also be read in conjunction with the Council’s Green Belt Review & Methodology .

1.3 The findings of this assessment are based upon the best available information at the point of its publication. The Council maintains an open ‘call for sites’ and continues to encourage landowners and other stakeholders to submit sites for future consideration.

1.4 In this document the term ‘Traveller’ includes Gypsies, Travellers and Travelling Showpeople.

2. Policy Context

National policy

National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)

2.1 The NPPF sets out overarching national planning policy and guidance for the preparation of Local Plans for England. At the heart of the NPPF is the ethos that planning should contribute to achieving sustainable development. This includes ensuring that sufficient land of the right type is available in the right places at the right time and providing the supply of land required to meet the needs of present and future generations. In addition, it encourages the effective use of land by reusing land that has been previously developed alongside active management of growth to ensure it is directed to sustainable locations.

Reigate & Banstead Borough Council 8 Traveller SHLAA 2017

2.2 The NPPF is centred around the presumption in favour of sustainable development and, for plan-making, this means seeking to meet objectively assessed needs, unless:

• any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the policies in the Framework; and • specific policies in the Framework indicate that development should be restricted - including protection of land designated as Green Belt, Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty, or locations at risk of flooding.

2.3 The NPPF refers to Planning Policy for Traveller Sites for specific guidance on the assessment of the land for Traveller provision.

Planning Policy for Traveller Sites (PPTS, 2015)

2.3 Planning Policy for Traveller Sites was updated in August 2015 and sets out the Government’s overarching aims in respect of Travellers, to ensure fair and equal treatment for the travelling community that facilitates their traditional and nomadic lifestyles, whilst respecting the interests of the settled community.

2.4 In particular, PPTS seeks to ensure that, in respect of Traveller sites, local planning authorities should: • Develop fair and effective strategies to meet needs through the identification of sites; • Increase the number of Traveller sites in appropriate locations to address under provision and maintain an appropriate supply of sites; • Enable provision of suitable accommodation from which Travellers can access health, education, welfare and employment opportunities; and • Protect the Green Belt and give due regard to the protection of local amenity and the local environment, whilst reducing tensions between settled and Traveller communities.

2.5 In terms of plan-making, the PPTS sets out that local planning authorities should ensure that Traveller sites are sustainable economically, socially and environmentally and, in terms of site suitability, should ensure that their policies: • Promote integrated co-existence between the site and local community; • Promote access to appropriate health services, and education; • Provide a settled base that reduces the need for long-distance travelling and environmental damage; • Provide consideration of the effect of local environmental quality (e.g. noise and air quality) on Travellers and neighbouring occupiers;

Reigate & Banstead Borough Council 9 Traveller SHLAA 2017

• Avoid placing undue pressure on local infrastructure and services; • Do not locate sites in areas at high risk of flooding; and • Reflect the extent to which traditional lifestyles can contribute to sustainability (some travellers live and work from the same location, thereby omitting many travel to work journeys).

2.6 The PPTS also seeks to encourage authorities to maintain a suitable supply of sites by requiring them to: • Identify a supply of deliverable sites sufficient to meet five years’ worth of sites against their locally set targets; and • Identify a supply of specific developable sites or broad locations for growth for years 6-10 and where possible, years 11-15.

National Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG), 2014

2.7 The National Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG) was published in March 2014. The NPPG updates and refreshes all existing planning guidance and provides advice on the implementation of the policies within the NPPF and the presumption in favour of sustainable development.

2.8 The NPPG sets out a five stage methodology 1 for conducting assessments of land availability such as the TSLAA, along with guidance relating to the key inputs and advice on the approach which should be adopted within each stage.

2.9 The following set of standard outputs are also recommended by the NPPG to ensure consistency, accessibility and transparency when undertaking any assessment of land availability: • A list of all sites and broad locations considered, cross referenced to their locations on maps; • An assessment of each site or broad location, in terms of its suitability for development, availability and achievability (including whether the site/broad location is viable), to determine whether a site is realistically expected to be developed and when; • Contain more detail for those sites which are considered to be realistic candidates for development, where others can be discounted for clearly evidenced and justified reasons; • The potential type and quantity of development that could be delivered on each site/broad location, including how any barriers to delivery could be overcome and when; and • An indicative trajectory of anticipated development and consideration of associated risks.

1 Planning Practice Guidance Paragraph: 007 Reference ID: 3-007-20140306

Reigate & Banstead Borough Council 10

2.10 The guidance also provides advice as to what could constitute a ‘deliverable’ or ‘developable’ site within the context of the NPPF.

Local policy

2.11 Reigate & Banstead Borough Council is in the process of preparing a new Local Plan to replace the Borough Local Plan (BLP) adopted in 2005. The first part of this new Local Plan, the Core Strategy, was adopted in 2014 and sets out broad objectives and scale of required development. The Core Strategy replaced some policies of the BLP and the rest will be replaced by the adoption of the Development Management Plan (DMP).

The Development Management Plan (DMP)

2.12 The DMP will set out detailed policies, and will also allocate land to meet the development needs set out in the Core Strategy. Any changes to the boundaries and extent of the Green Belt in the borough will also be progressed through the DMP.

2.13 The new Local Plan will also be supported by Supplementary Planning Documents (SPD) to provide additional detailed guidance and advice where this is considered necessary and appropriate.

The Core Strategy (2014)

2.14 The Core Strategy commits the Council to establish within the DMP a target for pitches/plots and to make provision for an adequate supply of sites. The target for plots and pitches will be informed by the Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation Assessment (GTAA).

2.15 The Core Strategy sets out the overarching sequential approach which the Council will adopt in identifying suitable sites, starting with sites in the urban area, followed by countryside not within the Green Belt and, finally, if necessary, land within the Green Belt. Policy CS16 sets out a series of clear criteria which will be used to assess the suitability of sites for allocation (see 4.4). These criteria are aligned with the guidance and principles in the PPTS and seek to ensure that sites are sustainable both environmentally and socially, whilst also being deliverable and affordable economically.

Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation Assessment (GTAA)

2.16 In accordance with the PPTS, the Council has recently completed an updated Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation Assessment (published July 2017). This

Reigate & Banstead Borough Council 11

document provides an objective assessment of the accommodation needs of the travelling community in Reigate & Banstead borough, taking account of the needs of the existing population and those seeking to move to Reigate & Banstead. The outputs are derived from a combination of desk based assessment and survey work with Traveller households both on sites and in “bricks and mortar”. This assessment, combined with evidence of constraints and land availability, will ultimately inform the target which will be included in the DMP.

2.17 The GTAA 2017 has taken account of the Government’s August 2015 change to the statutory definition of “Traveller”. The Council has taken legal advice which concluded that, under the 2010 Equalities Act, it should consider the accommodation needs of Romany Gypsies, Irish Travellers, and Scottish Travellers, even if they do not fall under the planning definition of Traveller. Information available from planning applications, enforcement cases and household interviews carried out for the GTAA indicate that, in Reigate and Banstead borough, all those included in the needs assessment identify as Irish Travellers or fall under the planning definition. In light of this legal advice the Council is seeking to meet the full identified level of need identified in the GTAA as far as possible. The findings of the GTAA are set out below:

Years 0-5 6-10 11-15 Status (plan timescale) 2016-21 2021-26 2026-31 Total Gypsy and Traveller pitches Meet Planning Definition 12 2 2 16 Unknown 6 1 1 8 Do not meet Planning 5 1 2 8 Definition TOTAL 23 4 5 32

Years 0-5 6-10 11-15 Status (plan timescale) 2016-21 2021-26 2026-31 Total Travelling Showpeople plots Meet Planning Definition 3 2 2 7 Unknown 0 0 0 0 Do not meet Planning 0 0 0 0 Definition TOTAL 3 2 2 7

Reigate & Banstead Borough Council 12

2.18 Given that the Local Plan period only extends until 2027, the total need to be accommodated within this plan period will be 28 pitches for Travellers and 5 plots for Travelling Showpeople.

3. Identification of sites for assessment

Site sources

3.1 In accordance with the requirements of the PPTS for identification of sites, this study is underpinned by a thorough and comprehensive search for sites and review of known sources of land. In particular, the study has considered:

• Existing authorised Traveller sites; • Land that is used and unauthorised for Traveller accommodation but tolerated; • Land that is used and unauthorised for Traveller accommodation but not tolerated; • Land with an extant planning permission for housing or Traveller accommodation which is yet to be implemented or where planning permission has expired (except where permitted under office to residential PD rights); • Land where planning permission for housing or Traveller accommodation was refused/dismissed at appeal for reasons that have the potential to be overcome; • Land suggested by members of the Travelling community during the production of the GTAA or as part of the Traveller ‘call for sites’ exercise in 2013; • Land suggested during a call for sites 2015; • Land owned by the Council or other public organisations; • Land submitted to the Council for consideration as part of the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA) (including the SHLAA Update 2016); • Land suggested as part of the Housing and Economic Land Availability Assessment (HELAA) (which will replace previous versions of the SHLAA); • Sites suggested as part of the Regulation 18 DMP consultation; and • Land or buildings that are empty or derelict or land which is underutilised in its current form.

3.2 All sites were assessed through the process outlined in the following sections.

Reigate & Banstead Borough Council 13

4. Site Assessment

Stage 1: Site size

4.1 All sites identified or suggested were put through an initial filtering process to ensure that they are of a suitable size to accommodate at least one Traveller pitch or Travelling Showperson plot. There is no official definition as to what constitutes the correct size for a single Traveller residential pitch or a showperson’s plot, so the following assumptions have been made about pitch and plot sizes.

4.2 Traveller pitch size assumptions: The Department of Communities and Local Government’s (DCLG) Designing Gypsy and Traveller Sites Good Practice Guide , 2008 (DGTS, 2008), although revoked, still provides useful guidance on design specifics including size, particularly in the absence of any other Government guidance on design. The document notes that there is no one ideal size of pitches but, as a general guide, an average family pitch must be capable of accommodating a lockable shed, drying space/small garden area, a large trailer, a touring caravan and an amenity building, together with space for two vehicles parking.

4.3 As such, a minimum pitch size of 600m2 has been determined to allow sufficient space to provide the physical accommodation as well as a site’s access/egress, vehicle turning, landscaping, setbacks from site boundaries and roads, and spaces between caravans. The average pitch size from existing Gypsy and Traveller sites in the borough has also been calculated, and supports this figure.

4.4 The design guide also notes that the experience of site managers and residents alike suggests that a maximum of 15 pitches is conducive to providing a comfortable environment. As such, a maximum site size of 1 hectare will be used. Where sites of over 1 hectare in size are taken forwards through the assessment process, the optimum part of the site up to 1 hectare in size will be assessed.

4.5 Travelling showpeople: Travelling Showpeople are likely to require larger areas, as they may need space for the storage of equipment. The average plot size of the existing provision for Travelling Showpeople within the borough has been calculated to inform the minimum requirements for future provision. A minimum area of 1,500 sqm will therefore be assumed.

4.6 Sites that were filtered out due to size are listed at Table 1 below.

Reigate & Banstead Borough Council 14

Table 1 – Sites smaller than 0.06 ha in size

Ref Site name BV17 Burghside, Brighton Road, Banstead EW14 Brethren Meeting Hall, 43 Woodlands Road, Redhill HC22 Imperial Buildings, Victoria Road, Horley HC27 T Northeast, 4 Station Road, Horley MSJ05 Bourne House, Lesbourne Road, Reigate RC19 Ringley Park House, Reigate Road, Reigate RC20 4-10 Church Street, Reigate RE15 The Sea Cadet Association, 2 Hooley Lane, Redhill RH14 Fileturn House, Reigate Hill, Reigate SPW12 60 Priory Road, Reigate SS19 South Lodge Court, Ironsbottom, Sidlow TAT04 Downs Mower Services, Tattenham Crescent, Epsom N10 Banstead Downs Reservoir, off Brighton Road TW12 Former Barclay’s Bank, 24 Station Approach, Tadworth TW15 Bothy Cottage, Buckland Lane, Reigate SS6 Land at Crossways Cottages, Mason’s Bridge Road, Redhill

Stage 2: Screening process – absolute constraints

4.7 The next stage was to filter out sites on “absolute” constraints. These were informed by the PPTS, SHLAA practice guidance, and national policy and have been used to identify sites which are outright inappropriate for Traveller accommodation. Sites affected by the following constraints are therefore not taken further forwards for assessment:

• Land that is a Site for Special Scientific Interest (SSSI); • Land within the Special Area of Conservation (SAC); • Land that is within the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB); • Land within or directly adjacent to a Conservation Area or within a Residential Area of Special Character (RASC); • Land within a Historic Park or Garden; • Land wholly within Flood Zone 2 or 3.

4.8 Table 2 below lists the sites excluded from further consideration due to absolute constraints, and the justification in each case.

Table 2 – Sites excluded from further consideration (absolute constraints)

Reigate & Banstead Borough Council 15

Ref Site name Justification BV13 Land east of Park Road, Banstead Site is directly adjacent to a Conservation Area EW01 Land south of Woodhatch Road, Site is wholly within Flood Zone 2 Reigate HE07 Farney View Farm, Avenue Gardens, Site is wholly in Flood Zone 2 and Horley partially in Flood Zone 3 HE09 Land at Newstead Hall, Haroldslea Site is wholly in Flood Zone 2 Drive, Horley HW18 Brethren Meeting Hall, Whitmore Way, Site is wholly in Flood Zones 2 and 3 Horley KBH01 Land at Margery Hall Nursery, Margery Site is located within an AONB Lane, Lower Kingswood KBH10 Land at Kingswood Knoll, Brighton Site is located within an AONB Road, Lower Kingswood KBH12 Land at Kingswood Station, Kingswood Site is directly adjacent to a Conservation Area KBH23 Land south of Margery Lane Site is located within an AONB (Kingswood Hall Estate), Lower Kingswood KBH24 Land south of M25 (Kingswood Hall Site is located within an AONB Estate), Lower Kingswood M01 Land at Rocky Lane, Reigate Site is located within an AONB M02 Merstham Baptist Church, Weldon Site is wholly within Flood Zone 3 Way, Merstham M03 Land at Albury Road, Merstham Site is wholly within Flood Zone 3 M11 Land north of Rockshaw Road, Site is directly adjacent to a Merstham Conservation Area M15 Bellway House, Station Road North, Site is directly adjacent to a Merstham Conservation Area RC01 Land rear of Flanchford Road, Reigate Site is directly adjacent to a Heath Conservation Area RC02 Land at Old Colley Farm, Colley Lane, Site is directly adjacent to a Reigate Conservation Area RC07 50-54 West Street, Reigate Site is directly adjacent to a Conservation Area RC11 Chatham Court & Linden Court, Site is directly adjacent to a Lesbourne Road, Reigate Conservation Area RC12 Land north of Buckland Road, Reigate Site is within a Conservation Area RC13 Reigate Beaumont Care Home, Colley Site is within a Conservation Area Lane, Reigate RC15 Former Priory Stables, Park Lane, Site is within a Conservation Area and Reigate a Historic Park RC16 The Croft, Buckland Road, Reigate Site is within a Conservation Area RE02 Land at Marketfield Way / High Street, Site is wholly in Flood Zone 2 and Redhill substantially in Flood Zone 3 RE14 Redstone Hall, 10 Redstone Hill, Site is within a Conservation Area Redhill RE26 26-28 Station Road, Redhill Site is wholly within Flood Zone 2 RH09 Trinity House, 51 London Road, Site is directly adjacent to a Reigate Conservation Area

TW05 Frith Park Mansion and grounds, Site is a Historic Garden Sturts Lane, Walton on the Hill US03 Seymour, Haroldslea Drive, Horley Site is in Flood Zone 2 RH13 Land at Quarry Farm, Gatton Road, Site is in an Area of Outstanding Reigate Natural Beauty (AONB) and an Area of

Reigate & Banstead Borough Council 16

Great Landscape Value (AGLV). RC23 Reigate Library & Pool House, Site is adjacent to a Conservation Area. Bancroft Road, Reigate RC33 Old Colley Farm, Reigate Site is within a Conservation Area RC34 Land to the R/O retail frontage in Bell Land to the rear is within a Street Conservation Area or Flood Zones 2 or 3 RW18 Extension to the rear of West Central, Adjacent to a Conservation Area 3 London Road, Redhill BV21 The Cutting, Brighton Road, Banstead, Site is a Site of Special Scientific Surrey. SM7 1AU Interest (SSSI). BV23 Rosehill Farm, Park Road, Banstead Site is adjacent to a Conservation Area M24 Land at Boars Green Farm Site is within an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB). M25 Land at Home Farm Site is adjacent to a Conservation Area RC25 Land to the R/O 45 West Street, Site is adjacent to a Conservation Area Reigate and almost entirely within Flood Zones 2 and 3. RC28 Alma House, 1A Alma Road, Reigate Site is adjacent to a Conservation Area RE27 North of Brook Road, Redhill Site is within Flood Zones 2 and 3

4.9 Each of the identified sites not ruled out due to size or absolute constraints has subsequently been assessed in terms of: suitability, availability and achievability in line with the requirements of National Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG). This assessment provides the evidence required to come to a reasoned judgement as to whether a site represents a realistic option for allocation as a Traveller pitch/plot, and whether the site could form part of the Council’s supply of deliverable/developable sites.

4.10 In the event that one of the constraints to development (either in respect of policy, physical characteristics, availability or viability) is severe and it is not known when - or whether - it might be overcome, the site is recorded as not passing that specific test; for example, it would be classed as “not suitable”, “not available” or “ not achievable".

Stage 3: Assessing Suitability and Development Potential

4.11 The suitability of sites has been assessed in line with the Planning Practice Guidance on Housing and economic land availability assessments ; and development potential has been guided by policies in the development plan, including the Core Strategy and the saved policies of the 2005 Borough Local Plan (BLP) (as well as the NPPF and PPTS 2015) and have regard to:

• Policy restrictions (including existing designations, and protected areas); • Physical problems or limitations (e.g. access, flood risk); and

Reigate & Banstead Borough Council 17

• Environmental conditions (potentially experienced by prospective residents).

4.12 The assessment of suitability has been guided by the criteria set out in Policy CS16 of the Core Strategy, which are in turn derived from the PPTS and capture the need for Traveller sites to be sustainable socially and environmentally. These criteria are that:

• The site can be integrated into the local area and co-exist with the local community; • The site has safe access to the highway and has adequate parking and turning areas; • The site provides a satisfactory residential environment for its intended occupiers and on-site utility services for the number of pitches proposed, including space for related business activities where applicable; • The site is not located in an area at high risk of flooding, including functional floodplains (caravans and mobiles homes are highly vulnerable uses for the purposes of flood risk and sequential test and therefore are only appropriate in Zone 1 and potentially in Zone 2 if the exception test can be passed); • There is adequate local infrastructure and access to appropriate healthcare and local schools. (In relation to this criterion we have considered convenience of travel, and accessibility for sustainable transport modes such as walking and cycling, to facilities, including consideration of factors such as suitability of roads for walking on at night, in addition to distance); and • The site does not significantly impact upon the visual amenity and character of the area or the amenity of neighbouring land uses.

4.13 All sites have been considered against each of the six criteria of Core Strategy Policy CS16, as well as additional policy considerations, with the overall conclusion on suitability taking account of performance against these.

4.14 The estimation of the potential capacity of each site has been guided by the physical characteristics of the site and any known constraints which could impact upon yield. Capacity has also been guided by advice contained in the Designing Gypsy and Traveller Sites: Good Practice Guide , as well as pitch/plot densities achieved on existing Traveller sites in the borough and beyond. Assumptions on average plot size are covered in para 4.2 above.

4.15 The conclusions drawn from the assessment of the sites against the suitability criteria above are summarised at Table 3. This table separates out the sites

Reigate & Banstead Borough Council 18

into different types of location (sites within the urban area; sites in non-Green Belt countryside; and sites within the Green Belt) to clearly reflect the sequential approach to identifying suitable sites, as set out in Policy CS16.

4.16 It should be noted that a number of the sites considered to perform well against the criteria, and therefore classified as suitable in the table, are located within Countryside or Green Belt locations and as such would subsequently be subject to the Green Belt Review in the next stage. These classifications recognise that whilst the site could offer a suitable and sustainable location for Traveller provision, further work is required to determine the extent of harm, if any, to the designation the site falls within, in the wider policy context of that designation.

4.17 Those sites meeting the suitability criteria are classified as suitable, and are colour coded as green. Sites which are considered suitable but would be subject to further review are shown in amber.

4.18 Where there are existing buildings on the site, it is assumed, just for this stage, that the buildings can either be removed or a pitch/plot located within the surrounding land. Testing whether this would be viable would be part of the next stage in the process.

4.19 Where it is noted that that there would be a loss of employment uses, it is recognised that this may be acceptable subject to demonstration that the employment use is no longer required, in line with national policy, and policy in the DMP.

4.20 With regard to sites within country-side beyond the Green Belt (Rural Surrounds of Horley), whilst sites within this designation would be more preferable than Green Belt sites in terms of the Core Strategy hierarchy, and are not subject to requirement for as rigorous justification as the Green Belt, the Green Belt review still assesses the Rural Surrounds of Horley to understand which areas of land play a more important role in maintaining settlement separation and preventing sprawl and/or most demonstrate the intrinsic beauty and character of the countryside in line with NPPF paragraph 17. As such, the findings in the Green Belt review regarding the Rural Surrounds of Horley would be applied to relevant sites.

Table 3: Site Suitability Conclusions

Ref Site name Site Performance against Additional Overall source Traveller site criteria (Policy Policy/ Suitability CS16/PPTS) Suitability Considerations Sites within the urban area

Reigate & Banstead Borough Council 19

Ref Site name Site Performance against Additional Overall source Traveller site criteria (Policy Policy/ Suitability CS16/PPTS) Suitability Considerations EW08 Hockley SHLAA Site performs acceptably or Loss of Suitable Business well against all criteria. employment Centre, Proximity to the railway line uses Hooley generates some concern for Lane, Redhill amenity of future occupants. Land is potentially contaminated EW10 101-105 SHLAA Site performs acceptably or None Suitable Horley Road, well against all criteria. Earlswood Access may need to traverse an area of Common Land and site would need to be carefully laid out to ensure a satisfactory level of amenity for future occupiers. EW11 19-23 SHLAA Site performs acceptably or None Suitable Woodhatch well against all criteria. Site Road, would need to be carefully laid Redhill out to ensure a satisfactory level of amenity for future occupiers. The southern half of the site lies within the surface water flood area. HC01 Land at the SHLAA Site performs acceptably or Existing BLP Suitable Grove, well against all criteria. housing Horley Proximity to the railway line allocation generates would need to be carefully mitigated. HC06 Land at SHLAA Site performs acceptably or Loss of open Suitable Yattendon well against all criteria. Impact space School, upon the street scene and associated with Oakwood predominantly residential the school Road, Horley character would need to be carefully considered. HE08 121 SHLAA Site performs acceptably or Impact on Suitable Smallfield well against all criteria. The protected Road, Horley site is affected to a very limited woodland and extent by Flood Zone 2. trees HE20 Laburnum, HELAA The site performs reasonably Rural Surrounds Suitable Haroldslea well against all criteria, but of Horley; Drive, Horley would need very careful impacts upon design to mitigate against protected trees problems in relation to access and neighbouring amenity. HW08 Landens SHLAA Site performs acceptably or Impact on Listed Suitable Farm well against all criteria. Given Buildings Buildings, the presence of listed Impact on Meath Green buildings, site would need to nature Lane, Horley be carefully designed/laid out conservation to ensure no adverse impact (Great Crested upon amenity Newts) HW09 The SHLAA Site performs acceptably or Phasing in line Suitable Croft/Meath well against all criteria. Given with delivery of Paddock, the presence of listed North West Meath Green buildings, site would need to Sector, Horley Lane, Horley be carefully designed/laid out to ensure no adverse impact upon amenity HW10 59-61, HELAA The site performs reasonably Local listing of Suitable Brighton well against all criteria, but nearby building. Road, Horley would need very careful design to mitigate against

Reigate & Banstead Borough Council 20

Ref Site name Site Performance against Additional Overall source Traveller site criteria (Policy Policy/ Suitability CS16/PPTS) Suitability Considerations problems in relation to neighbouring amenity. M12 Merstham Public Site performs acceptably or Impact upon Suitable Library, Land – well against all criteria. Site regeneration Weldon Surrey would need to be designed to proposals for Way, CC avoid any parts of the site at Merstham Merstham risk of flooding. MSJ03 Redhill SHLAA Site performs acceptably or None Suitable Ambulance well against all criteria. Site Station, would need to be designed to Pendleton minimise and mitigate against Road, amenity impact on Redhill neighbouring uses given the tight relationship N10 14 Brighton SHLAA Site performs acceptably or None Suitable Road, well against all criteria. Banstead Proximity to residential dwellings generates some concern for impact on neighbouring residential amenity. P04 Former Public Site performs acceptably or Impact on Suitable DeBurgh Land – well against all criteria. Small Preston School, Surrey parts of the site in the southern regeneration Chetwode CC half are affected by surface proposals Road, water flooding. Existing BLP Preston housing allocation RC18 Reigate SHLAA Site performs acceptably or Loss of Suitable Business well against all criteria. employment Mews, Albert Development of the site would uses Road North, need to be mindful of close Reigate proximity of neighbouring commercial and residential development. Much of the site is affected by surface water flooding. RC24 Royal Mail HELAA The site performs reasonably None Suitable Delivery well against all criteria, but Office, would need very careful Rushworth design to mitigate against Road, problems in relation to Reigate, neighbouring amenity. RH2 0PR RE04 Colebrook Public Site would have to be Impact on Suitable Day Centre, Land – designed sensitively to avoid Redhill Noke Drive, Surrey impacts on townscape regeneration Redhill CC character of area. Flooding plans risk also impacts upon Impact on suitability for vulnerable protected trees traveller accommodation. RE07 Royal Mail SHLAA Site performs adequately or Impact on Suitable Sorting well against all criteria. Redhill Office, St Proximity to railway line also regeneration Anne’s generates some concern for plans Drive, amenity of future occupants Redhill and the tightly relationship to existing residential properties would need to be carefully considered to safeguard amenity. RE10 Gasholder SHLAA Site performs acceptably or Land is Suitable

Reigate & Banstead Borough Council 21

Ref Site name Site Performance against Additional Overall source Traveller site criteria (Policy Policy/ Suitability CS16/PPTS) Suitability Considerations site, Hooley well against all criteria. potentially Lane, Redhill Proximity to industrial uses contaminated generates some concern for De- amenity of future occupants. commissioning of utilities use RE21 Quarryside SHLAA Site performs adequately or Loss of Suitable Business well against all criteria. employment use Park, Proximity to railway line Thornton generates some concern for Side, Redhill amenity of future occupants. RW11 Land at The SHLAA Site performs reasonably or Impact on Suitable Frenches, well against all criteria. protected trees. Redhill Development would need to Impact on be carefully designed to avoid adjoining Listed impacts on neighbouring Building. residential uses, and access Loss of private would need to be created from informal the existing cul-de-sac. recreation space. RW2 03 Former DMP, The site performs reasonably Linkfield House Suitable Territorial Reg 19 well against all criteria, but is a locally listed Army Site, would need very careful building. Linkfield design to mitigate against House, 3 problems in relation to Batts Lane, neighbouring amenity. Redhill RW21 Donyngs DMP, The site performs reasonably None Suitable Carpark and Reg 19 well against all criteria, but Indoor Bowls would need very careful Centre Car design to mitigate against Park problems in relation to neighbouring amenity. There would also be concerns about potential conflict of uses with neighbouring uses (leisure centre/bowls). TW11 Former Public Site performs acceptably or Impact on Suitable Royal Land – well against all criteria. protected trees Phoenix, RBBC Concerns over access to local to rear of site Dorking services and site would need Road, to ne sensitively screened in Tadworth this sensitive location. BV01 Land at Public Site performs poorly against Loss of Not Lambert Land - criteria b) and f) given its allotment space suitable Road, RBBC constrained access and very Banstead tight siting and potential impact upon predominantly residential neighbouring uses BV03 Thrieve, SHLAA Site performs poorly against None Not Orchard criteria b) and f) given its suitable House and constrained access and tight Inyoni, De siting within a predominantly Burgh Park, residential location Banstead BV04 Amberley, SHLAA Site performs poorly against Recommended Not Bolters criteria f) given the visual for retention as suitable Lane, amenity and positive Urban Open Banstead contribution which the open Space site makes to the character of Bolters Lane BV06 The Clinic Public Site performs poorly against Impact on future Not and Youth Land – criteria b) and f) owing to the regeneration of suitable

Reigate & Banstead Borough Council 22

Ref Site name Site Performance against Additional Overall source Traveller site criteria (Policy Policy/ Suitability CS16/PPTS) Suitability Considerations Centre, The Surrey constrained access/sensitivity Banstead Horseshoe, CC of the surrounding roads in Horseshoe Banstead terms of highway safety (presence of primary schools) and the tight siting within a suburban area BV07 Surrey SHLAA Site performs poorly against Impact on future Not Ambulance criteria b) and f) owing to the regeneration of suitable HQ, The constrained access/sensitivity Banstead Horseshoe, of the surrounding roads in Horseshoe Bolters terms of highway safety Lane, (presence of primary schools) Banstead and the tight siting within a suburban area BV02 Land at Holly Public Site performs well against all Recommended Not Lane, Land – criteria retention of suitable Banstead RBBC Urban Open Space BV10 Bentley & Public Site performs poorly against Impact on future Not The Land – criteria b) and f) owing to the regeneration of suitable Squirrels, Surrey constrained access/sensitivity Banstead The CC of the surrounding roads in Horseshoe Horseshoe, terms of highway safety Banstead (presence of primary schools) and the tight siting within a suburban area BV11 Banstead Public Site performs acceptably or Designated Not Hall Playing Land – well against all criteria. Urban Open Suitable Field, Bolters Surrey Potential for privacy issues Space Lane, CC due to close proximity of Banstead residential development, and Impact on future would need to be sensitively regeneration of screened to prevent harmful Banstead impact on the character of the Horseshoe area. BV14 Land at SHLAA Site performs poorly against None Not Wellesford criteria b) and f) given its suitable Close, constrained access and tight Banstead siting within a predominantly residential location EW02 Land to the SHLAA Site performs poorly against Land is Not rear of 1 - 39 criteria b) and f) given its potentially suitable Earlsbrook constrained access and tight contaminated Road, siting to the rear of existing Redhill residential properties. Site also performs poorly against criteria c) owing to the potential impact of proximity to the railway line and compromised nature of the site on amenity of future occupiers. EW15 Brethren HELAA This site performs reasonably None Not Meeting Hall, well against several criteria, suitable 2 Redstone but the potential impact upon Road, the neighbouring Redhill, residential/suburban Surrey environment, for example through the types of movements/storage to be accommodated, means it performs poorly against criteria F.

Reigate & Banstead Borough Council 23

Ref Site name Site Performance against Additional Overall source Traveller site criteria (Policy Policy/ Suitability CS16/PPTS) Suitability Considerations HC02 High Street Public Site performs poorly against Loss of public Not Car Park, Land - criteria f) given the potential car parking suitable Horley RBBC adverse impact upon the town capacity and centre environment and impact on town townscape in a prominent centre vitality location. Proximity to the railway line generates some concern for amenity of future occupants. HC03 Central Car Public Site performs poorly against Loss of public Not Park, Land - criteria f) given the potential car parking suitable Consort Way RBBC adverse impact upon the town capacity and East, Horley centre environment and impact on town townscape. centre vitality HC04 Former SHLAA Site performs poorly against None Not Henry’s criteria f) given the potential suitable Garage, adverse impact upon the town Victoria centre environment and Road, Horley townscape in a prominent location and tight relationship with surrounding residential uses HC05 Balcombe SHLAA Site performs acceptably or Designated Not Road well against all criteria. Local suitable Industrial Employment Estate, However, proximity to the Site (DMP) Horley railway line and industrial uses generates some concern for Land is amenity of future occupants. potentially contaminated HW14 Bridge DMP, This site performs poorly Designated as a Not Industrial Reg 18 against criterion C regarding Local suitable Estate, residential environment, and Employment Horley there would also be concerns Area; locally about the amount of space listing available.

HC07 Air Balloon SHLAA Site performs poorly against Part of the site is Not Public criteria f) given the prominent a locally listed suitable House, location of the site and the building Brighton potential adverse impact upon Road, Horley the character of the area HC10 Horley Public Site performs poorly against Loss of Not Library, Land – criteria f) given the potential community suitable Kings Road, Surrey negative townscape impact facilities Horley CC upon a key gateway to the town centre. HC15 Mitchells of SHLAA Site performs poorly against Loss of Not Horley, 1-9 criteria c) and f) given the employment suitable Station potential impact of proximity to uses Road, Horley the railway line and Land is compromised nature of the site potentially on amenity of future occupiers contaminated and the tight relationship with adjoining uses HC16 Horley SHLAA Site performs poorly against None Not Police criteria f) given the potential suitable Station, townscape impact upon a key Massetts gateway to the town centre. Road, Horley HC17 Chequers SHLAA Site performs poorly against None Not Hotel, criteria f) given the prominent suitable

Reigate & Banstead Borough Council 24

Ref Site name Site Performance against Additional Overall source Traveller site criteria (Policy Policy/ Suitability CS16/PPTS) Suitability Considerations Bonehurst location of the site and the Road, Horley potential adverse impact upon the character of the area and the setting of listed buildings currently on the site. HC19 Saxley SHLAA Site performs poorly against Impact on Not Court, criteria f) due to the prominent Shopping area suitable Victoria location and potential adverse Impact on Road, Horley impact on the town centre protected trees retail frontage and overall on frontage townscape. HC24 100 Victoria SHLAA Site performs poorly against Loss of Not Road, Horley criteria f) due to the prominent employment suitable location and potential adverse uses impact on the town centre retail frontage and overall townscape. HC25 Oakfield SHLAA Site performs poorly against Loss of offices Not Court, criteria f) due to the prominent suitable Consort location and potential adverse Way, Horley impact on the town centre frontage and overall townscape. HC29 Brethren HELAA There would be concerns Adjacent Not Meeting Hall, regarding the potential impact protected trees suitable The Grove upon the neighbouring Meeting Hall, residential/suburban The Grove, environment, for example Horley through the types of movements/storage to be accommodated (criteria F) and the small size of the site and additional consideration of protected trees covering part of the site. HE02 Gas holder SHLAA Site performs acceptably or Land is Not site, well against all criteria. potentially suitable Balcombe Proximity to industrial uses contaminated Road, Horley generates some concern for amenity of future occupants. Designated Local Employment Site (DMP) HE03 75 Smallfield SHLAA Site performs poorly against None Not Road, Horley criteria f) and would be out of suitable character in the predominantly suburban residential environment. Access and movements within the site, as well as potential business storage, would be likely to adversely impact on the amenity of surrounding residential properties, given the tight relationship. HE12 Land at SHLAA Site performs poorly against d) Impact on Not Langshott/Or as the majority of the site lies protected trees Suitable chard Drive, in Flood Zone 2. on southern Horley North boundary East HW17 Albert DMP, This site performs poorly Identified in Reg Not Brewery Reg 18 against criteria A and C – it 18 as a Local suitable

Reigate & Banstead Borough Council 25

Ref Site name Site Performance against Additional Overall source Traveller site criteria (Policy Policy/ Suitability CS16/PPTS) Suitability Considerations (part of would be very close to other Employment Bridge uses with potential for amenity Area; locally Industrial issues for neighbouring uses listing Estate) and a poor residential environment. Access may also be a problem. M04 Former Iron Public Site performs poorly against Impact upon Not Horse Public Land – criteria f) given the prominent regeneration suitable House, RBBC location and potential impact proposals for Bletchingley upon the character and Merstham Road, townscape of Merstham Merstham M05 Land north SHLAA Site performs poorly against This has been Not of Wells criteria b) given the only designated as suitable Place, access is via an industrial an Employment Redhill estate road which is unsuited Site in the DMP. to a residential use. Proximity to industrial uses and the Impact upon railway line also generates Ancient some concern for amenity of Woodland future occupants. M06 Moat House SHLAA Site performs poorly against Impact upon Not Surgery, criteria f) given the prominent regeneration suitable Worsted location and potential impact proposals for Green, upon the character and Merstham Merstham townscape of Merstham and very tight siting/potential impact upon predominantly residential neighbouring uses M07 Land at SHLAA Site performs poorly against Impact upon Not Bletchingley criteria f) given the prominent regeneration suitable Road (“The location and potential impact proposals for Triangle upon the character and Merstham Site”), townscape of Merstham Merstham M13 The Oakley Public Site performs poorly against Impact upon Not Centre, Land – criteria f) given the tight regeneration suitable Radstock Surrey siting/potential impact upon proposals for Way, CC predominantly residential Merstham Merstham neighbouring uses and potential adverse impact upon listed buildings on the site (including setting) M16 Telephone SHLAA Site performs poorly against Land is Not Exchange & criteria d) owing to the fact that potentially suitable Depot Site, a large proportion of the contaminated Station Road central part of the site is within North, Flood Zone 3 Merstham

M19 Land at SHLAA Site performs poorly against Alternative Not Portland criteria f) and would be out of provision for suitable Drive character in the predominantly shopping suburban residential facilities environment. Access and movements within the site, as well as potential business storage, would be likely to adversely impact on the amenity of surrounding residential properties, given the tight relationship.

Reigate & Banstead Borough Council 26

Ref Site name Site Performance against Additional Overall source Traveller site criteria (Policy Policy/ Suitability CS16/PPTS) Suitability Considerations M22 Church of SHLAA Site performs poorly against Impact upon Not Epiphany, criteria f) and would be out of regeneration suitable Mansfield character in the predominantly proposals for Drive, suburban residential Merstham Merstham environment. Access and movements within the site, as well as potential business storage, would be likely to adversely impact on the amenity of surrounding residential properties, given the tight relationship. N01 Land at Public Site performs poorly against Loss of Not Bridgefield Land – criteria b) and f) given its allotment space suitable Close, Nork RBBC constrained access and very tight siting and potential impact upon predominantly residential neighbouring uses N02 Land at Public Site performs poorly against Loss of Not Parsonsfield Land – criteria b) and f) given its allotment space suitable Road, Nork RBBC constrained access and very tight siting and potential impact upon predominantly residential neighbouring uses N07 Land at The Public Site performs poorly against Loss of open Not Drive, Land – criteria b) and f) given its space suitable Banstead RBBC constrained access and prominent siting within an area of public open space. N08 268-288 Fir SHLAA Site performs poorly against None Not Tee Road, criteria f) and would be out of suitable Banstead character in the predominantly suburban residential environment. Access and movements within the site, as well as potential business storage, would be likely to adversely impact on the amenity of surrounding residential properties, given the tight relationship. N09 125-129 SHLAA Site performs poorly against None Not Nork Way, criteria f) and would be out of suitable Banstead character in the predominantly suburban residential environment. Access and movements within the site, as well as potential business storage, would be likely to adversely impact on the amenity of surrounding residential properties, given the tight relationship. P01 Unit 4, Public Site performs adequately or Designated Not Pitwood Land – well against all criteria. Local suitable Park, RBBC Proximity to industrial uses Employment Waterfield, and the railway line generates Site (DMP) Tadworth some concern for amenity of future occupants. P02 Laboratory Public Site performs adequately or Designated Not site, Pitwood Land – well against all criteria. Local suitable Park RBBC Proximity to industrial uses Employment

Reigate & Banstead Borough Council 27

Ref Site name Site Performance against Additional Overall source Traveller site criteria (Policy Policy/ Suitability CS16/PPTS) Suitability Considerations Industrial and the railway line generates Site (DMP) Estate, some concern for amenity of Waterfield, future occupants. Tadworth P03 Land at Public Site performs acceptably or Recommended Not Merland Land – well against all criteria. A for retention as suitable Rise, RBBC small part of the site is Urban Open Preston affected by surface water flood Space area. Impact on Preston regeneration proposals RC03 Land at 50- SHLAA Site performs poorly against Land is Not 52, Unit 54 criteria b) given the only potentially suitable and 61, access is via an industrial contaminated Albert Road estate road which is unsuited North, to this use. Reigate RC05 Land at SHLAA Site performs poorly against None Not Rushworth criteria c) given the potential suitable Road, adverse impact of proximity to Reigate the railway line on future occupants as well as the topography which may be unsuited to traveller provision. Site also performs poorly against criteria f) given the visual amenity and positive contribution which the densely wooded site makes to the character of the area RC06 Police Public Site performs poorly against None Not Headquarter Land – criteria f) given the prominent suitable s, Reigate Surrey location of the site and the Road, Police potential adverse impact upon Reigate the character of the area as well as its tight relationship with surrounding residential uses RC32 Reigate DMP, The site performs reasonably Protected trees Not Station car Reg 18 well against some criteria, but suitable park - DMP when considered against suggestion criteria C and F it is clear that was section residential amenity – for adjacent to travellers and surrounding Homebase uses – would not be as well as satisfactory. Also some the station portions of the suggested site car parking would be unlikely to be available. RE01 Land at SHLAA Site performs poorly against Impact on Not Redhill criteria f) due to the prominent Redhill suitable Station, location and potential impact regeneration Princess on the character and plans Way, Redhill townscape environment. RE03 Warwick Public Site performs poorly against Impact on Not Quadrant Land – criteria f) due to the prominent Redhill suitable North, RBBC location and potential adverse regeneration London impact on the town centre plans Road, frontage and overall Loss of Redhill townscape. employment

Reigate & Banstead Borough Council 28

Ref Site name Site Performance against Additional Overall source Traveller site criteria (Policy Policy/ Suitability CS16/PPTS) Suitability Considerations uses Site situated within the Redhill Air Quality Management Area

RE05 Land at SHLAA Site performs poorly against Designated Not Reading criteria d) due to the site being employment site suitable Arch Road, largely within Flood Zone Impact on Redhill 3a/3b and parts in Flood Zone Redhill 2. Site also performs poorly regeneration against criteria c) due to plans access to the site only being available through the adjoining industrial area RE06 Former SHLAA Site performs poorly against Impact on Not Liquid & criteria f) due to the prominent Redhill suitable Envy location and potential impact regeneration Nightclub, on the character and plans Marketfield townscape environment. Way, Redhill RE09 Land south Public Site performs adequately or Recommended Not of Wiggie Land – well against all criteria. for retention as suitable Lane, Redhill RBBC Proximity to railway line also Urban Open generates some concern for Space amenity of future occupants. RE11 Land SHLAA Site performs poorly against Land is Not between criteria c) owing to the site potentially suitable Trowers being “sandwiched” between contaminated Way and general industrial uses which Holmethorpe would give rise to poor Avenue, amenity for future occupiers. Redhill RE12 Redstone SHLAA Site performs poorly against None Not Tennis Club, criteria b) and f) given there is suitable Redstone no existing road access to the Park, Redhill site (and no obvious prospect of achieving one) and the very tight relationship to existing residential uses. RE13 Land near Public Site performs poorly against Loss of public Not Wordsworth Land – criteria f) given the very tight open space suitable Mead, RBBC siting in relation to existing Redhill residential uses and the potential adverse impact upon neighbour amenity the reduction in visual amenity arising from loss of the open space. Access via the existing residential cul-de-sacs may also be a concern given the movements likely to occur. RE23 Victoria SHLAA Site performs poorly against Impact on Not House, criteria f) given the prominent Redhill suitable Brighton location and potential impact regeneration Road, upon the character and plans Redhill townscape of a main gateway to Redhill. Flooding risk and proximity to the industrial uses also raise some concerns.

Reigate & Banstead Borough Council 29

Ref Site name Site Performance against Additional Overall source Traveller site criteria (Policy Policy/ Suitability CS16/PPTS) Suitability Considerations RE30 Former DMP, The site performs poorly Designated Not Mercedes Reg 18 against criteria C, D, and F – it Retail suitable Garage, would provide a substandard Warehouse Brighton residential environment, be Area for Redhill Road, constrained through flood Redhill zones, and potentially impede access to neighbouring uses. RE31 Land DMP, This site performs well for None Not between Reg18 some criteria, but should be suitable southbound ruled out against criteria B as it railway and would require the creation of a eastbound railway crossing. The railway residential environment may (south of also be poor (criteria C). Redhill railway station) RH02 Madeira Public Site performs poorly against Recommended Not Sandpit, off Land – criteria b) and f) given there is for retention as suitable Madeira RBBC no existing access to the site Urban Open Walk/ (and no obvious prospect of Space Highlands achieving one safely), the very Road, tight relationship to existing Reigate residential use which given topographical changes may create amenity issues. Use of the site for traveller provision would also result in the loss of part of a landscape scale green chain. RH08 Land south SHLAA Site performs poorly against None Not of criteria b) given the very Suitable Dorchester constrained access to the site Court, Wray via a sloping private road and Common tight junction which would be Road, unsuited to the type of Reigate movements and vehicles resulting from traveller provision. RH12 Acacia SHLAA Site performs poorly against None Not House, criteria f) given the prominent suitable Reigate Hill, location within the town centre Reigate and the likely adverse impact upon town centre environment. Tight relationship with residential uses adds to the poor performance. RH15 Former DMP, The site performs well against Former depot Not Madeira Reg 18 all of the criteria, with the building is suitable Quarry proviso that design would be locally listed Depot, Wray careful to mitigate against (and Traveller Common negative impacts upon the surrounding use Road, surrounding areas (criteria F). may preclude Reigate it’s re-use); protected trees RW01 Land at Public Site performs poorly against Impact on Not Cromwell Land – criteria f) given the prominent Redhill suitable Road, RBBC location within the town centre regeneration Redhill frontage and the likely adverse plans impact upon town centre environment. Tight relationship with residential uses to the rear also adds to the poor

Reigate & Banstead Borough Council 30

Ref Site name Site Performance against Additional Overall source Traveller site criteria (Policy Policy/ Suitability CS16/PPTS) Suitability Considerations performance. RW02 Land at Public Site performs poorly against Impact on Not Gloucester Land – criteria d) owing to the fact that Redhill suitable Road, RBBC the site is substantially regeneration Redhill affected by Flood Zone 2 and plans large areas in the north and east of the site are within Flood Zone 3a/3b. RW03 Former Call for This site performs adequately The site is Not Longmead sites against most of the criteria, but Locally Listed. suitable Adult its proximity to housing and Education town centre uses raises Centre, concerns regarding visual Redhill impacts and character/amenity of the surrounding area as per criteria f. RW04 Land at Public Site performs poorly against Recommended Not Colesmead Land – criteria f) owing to the potential for retention as suitable Road, RBBC adverse impact on visual Urban Open Redhill amenity arising from the loss Space of open space which is integral to the character of the locality RW05 Land south Public Site performs well against all Recommended Not of Gatton Land – criteria. Site would need to be for retention as suitable Park Road, RBBC designed to maintain amenity Urban Open Redhill of surrounding residential Space uses. RW06 Land at Public Site performs poorly against Loss of Not Green Way, Land – criteria f) owing to the recreation/play suitable Redhill RBBC prominent location of the site space within the street scene and the very tight relationship with existing residential properties and potential adverse impacts upon amenity RW08 Land rear of SHLAA Site performs poorly against None Not 42-46 criteria b) and f) given there is suitable Carlton currently no direct access to Road, the site from the road and the Redhill very tight siting to the rear of existing residential properties which would likely give rise to an adverse impact on amenity. RW10 Former SHLAA Site performs poorly against Loss of Not Crown criteria f) given the prominent employment suitable Buildings, location of the site on a main uses London gateway to Redhill and the Road, potential negative impact upon Redhill character and street scene. RW12 The Bridge Public Site performs poorly against None Not Family Land – criteria f) given the prominent suitable Centre, Surrey location of the site on a main Station CC gateway to Redhill and the Road, potential negative impact upon Redhill character and street scene. RW14 21 SHLAA The site performs poorly Loss of Listed Not Clarendon against criteria b) due to Building. suitable Road, difficulties in creating highway Loss of Redhill access, criteria c) due to economic use constraints of site and (restaurant) proximity to neighbouring development which could

Reigate & Banstead Borough Council 31

Ref Site name Site Performance against Additional Overall source Traveller site criteria (Policy Policy/ Suitability CS16/PPTS) Suitability Considerations harm the amenity of future occupiers, and criteria f) as this is a prominent site and development would have a harmful impact on the town centre frontage and townscape character. Use of the site would also necessitate loss of Listed Building. RW15 Land adj. to SHLAA The site performs poorly Impact on the Not former against criteria c) due to town centre suitable Crown constraints of site and business area Buildings, proximity to neighbouring Nash Drive, development which could Redhill harm the amenity of future occupiers and make provision of facilities difficult, and criteria f) as this is a prominent site and development would have a harmful impact on the town centre frontage and townscape character. RW16 Knowles SHLAA The site performs poorly Impact on Not House, against criteria c) due to Redhill suitable Cromwell constraints of site and regeneration Road, High proximity to neighbouring plans Street, development which could Redhill harm the amenity of future occupiers and make provision of facilities difficult, and criteria f) as this is a prominent site and development would have a harmful impact on the town centre frontage and townscape character. RW17 Berkeley SHLAA The site performs poorly Loss of ground Not House, High against criteria b) due to floor retail units suitable Street, difficulties in creating highway and offices Redhill access, criteria c) due to above constraints of site and proximity to neighbouring development which could harm the amenity of future occupiers, and criteria f) as this is a prominent site and development would have a harmful impact on the town centre frontage and townscape character. RW19 Linkfield DMP, This site performs poorly The site is Not Lane Car Reg 18 against criteria C and F – it is proposed for the suitable Park, Redhill on the middle of a roundabout, DMP as part of adjacent to another busy a Local Centre roundabout and would (which could therefore be likely to provide a lead to issues poor residential environment; it regarding would also be likely to impact vitality). upon the visual amenity of the area. RW20 Grosvenor HELAA This site would present issues Town Centre Not House, regarding co-existence with location suitable Redhill neighbouring uses (criterion A (inappropriate) and F).

Reigate & Banstead Borough Council 32

Ref Site name Site Performance against Additional Overall source Traveller site criteria (Policy Policy/ Suitability CS16/PPTS) Suitability Considerations RW22 Belfry DMP, This site presents concerns Within Local Not Redhill Reg 18 regarding achieving a suitable Employment suitable [Suggested residential environment, Area, Primary residential flooding, and affects upon Frontages, and over adjacent uses (shoppers) Principle retail/car (criteria C, D, and F). Employment park] However the main concern Area (DMP) would be access to the rooftop via existing shoppers’ car parking (criteria B). SPW06 Land at SHLAA Site performs poorly against Impact upon Not Lavender criteria b) and f) given the very geological and suitable Sandpit, constrained access to the site nature Cockshot (via a private cul-de-sac), the conservation Hill, Reigate tight siting in relation to value of the site existing residential uses and potential adverse impact on the visual amenity. SPW17 Garage HELAA The site performs poorly Tree protection Not Block, against criteria A-C, providing suitable Kingsley a small and constrained site, Grove, but would be particularly Reigate unsuitable regarding impacts upon the character of the local suburban environment (criteria F). SS09 Former SHLAA Site performs acceptably or Designated Not Matrix site, well against all of the criteria. Principal suitable Perrywood Suitable access via the Employment Business existing track which runs to the Site (DMP) Park, west of the site would need to Salfords be considered carefully. Proximity to other traveller sites in the Salfords/East Salfords area would need to be taken into account to ensure further provision does not give rise to dominance. SS13 Land to the SHLAA Site performs poorly against Loss of Not north of criteria c) given the close employment suitable Salfords proximity to the railway line, land aggregates industrial uses and the depot (west proposed aggregates facility Designated of Salfords and significant impact this Industrial Estate Station) would have on amenity of Salbrook future occupants. Road, Salfords SS16 Astra and SHLAA Site performs acceptably or Designated Not Heath well against all of the criteria. Principal suitable Business Proximity to the railway line Employment Centre, and industrial uses gives rise Site (DMP) Perrywood to some concerns about the Business amenity of future occupiers. Park, Salfords SS24 Axeland DMP, This site is fairly remote and The land Not Park, Axes Reg 18 could reduce potential for between suitable Lane, integration and access to Axeland Park Salfords infrastructure and facilities and Newhouse (including (criteria A and E). Lane is covered land by a TPO group between blanket.

Reigate & Banstead Borough Council 33

Ref Site name Site Performance against Additional Overall source Traveller site criteria (Policy Policy/ Suitability CS16/PPTS) Suitability Considerations Axes Lane and New House Lane) SS25 Salfords DMP, The site would require careful Principle Not Industrial Reg 18 design and layout t and would Employment suitable Estate, be dependent on the scale of Area (DMP) Bonehurst available land in regard to Road, criteria A – C, and F. Tree protection Salfords TW03 Land at Public Site performs poorly against Recommended Not Tadworth Land – criteria b) owing to the highly retention as suitable Street, RBBC constrained access to the site Urban Open Tadworth via an existing cul-de-sac. Site Space also performs poorly against criteria c) owing to the extreme proximity to the railway line and the compromised nature of the site in terms of its size and siting. Site performs poorly against criteria f) as it would result in the loss of an area of woodland which makes a contribution to the character and visual amenity of the area. TW09 Traffic SHLAA Site performs poorly against Impact on Not Garages, 41 criteria f) given the potential setting of suitable Walton adverse impact upon the adjoining Locally Street, character of a predominantly Listed Building Walton on residential/suburban area and the Hill the very tight relationship with adjoining residential properties. TW13 Former City DMP, It would be unsuitable (out of Adjacent to a Not Gate Mini, Reg 18 character) in the transition listed building suitable 90, The area between residential and Aveue, Local Centre uses (re criteria Tadworth F). SW19 Lime Tree DMP, This site performs reasonably None Not School, Reg 18 well against several criteria, suitable Alexander but the potential impact upon Road, the neighbouring Reigate residential/suburban environment, for example through the types of movements/storage to be accommodated, means it performs poorly against criteria F. Sites in non -Green Belt countryside

HE17 Land on the HELAA This site performs reasonably Suitable south side of well against all criteria, with Smallfield some concerns regarding Road, Horley access, and provisos around the need to mitigate against impacts upon neighbouring uses and character. HW03 Land at SHLAA This site performs adequately None Suitable Bonehurst well against all criteria, Road, Horley although there would be concerns regarding access. HC11 Bayhorne SHLAA Site performs acceptably or Could Suitability

Reigate & Banstead Borough Council 34

Ref Site name Site Performance against Additional Overall source Traveller site criteria (Policy Policy/ Suitability CS16/PPTS) Suitability Considerations Farm, well against all criteria. Site compromise the subject to Apperlie has somewhat constrained Strategic review of Drive, Horley access via a cul-de-sac. Site Employment country- is partially in Flood Zone 2 Site side (north part). beyond Green Belt HC12 Fishers SHLAA Site performs acceptably or Could Suitability Farm, Limes well against all criteria. compromise the subject to Avenue, Concerns over proximity of site Strategic review of Horley to traveller sites in East Horley Employment country- which could give rise to Site side dominance in local community. beyond Site has somewhat Green Belt constrained access via a cul- de-sac. Site is partially in Flood Zone 2 (north part). HC18 Meadowcroft SHLAA Site performs acceptably or Impact on dense Suitability 182 well against all criteria. Site is woodland subject to Balcombe within noise contour for character review of Road, Horley Gatwick Airport which may Site is within country- impact on amenity of future 57dB noise side occupiers. Northern part of contour for beyond site affected by surface water Gatwick Airport Green Belt flooding. Could compromise the Strategic Employment Site HC28 Land at SHLAA Site performs acceptably or Impact on dense Suitability Meadowcroft well against all criteria. Site is woodland subject to House, within noise contour for character review of Balcombe Gatwick Airport which may Site is within country- Road, Horley impact on amenity of future 57dB noise side occupiers. Northern part of contour for beyond site affected by surface water Gatwick Airport Green Belt flooding. HE06 Land at SHLAA Site performs acceptably or Impact on Suitability Inholms, well against all criteria. Site adjoining Listed subject to Haroldslea has somewhat constrained Building review of Drive, Horley access. Site is affected by Impact on country- Flood Zones 2 and 3 as well protected trees side as surface water flooding in beyond some parts. Green Belt HE11 Land SHLAA Site performs acceptably or Impact on Suitability adjoining 61 well against all criteria. ditches and subject to Silverlea Concerns over potentially watercourses to review of Gardens, constrained access. Eastern the south of the country- Horley half of site falls within Flood site side Zone 2 and some of the Impact and beyond western part is affected by potential loss of Green Belt surface water flooding. Grade 3 agricultural land HW06 Land north SHLAA Site performs acceptably or Phasing in line Suitability of Meath well against all of the criteria with delivery of subject to Green Lane but would need to be North West review of (“The sensitively designed and Sector, Horley country- Cottage”), screened given the side Horley countryside location. The site beyond is partially in Flood Zone 3 and Green Belt these areas would need to be avoided in allocation in order to pass the sequential test.

Reigate & Banstead Borough Council 35

Ref Site name Site Performance against Additional Overall source Traveller site criteria (Policy Policy/ Suitability CS16/PPTS) Suitability Considerations Site would be reliant on facilities/road links provided as part of the NWS sector and would need to be phased accordingly. HW07 Land at SHLAA Site performs acceptably or Phasing in line Suitability Meath Green well against all criteria. The with delivery of subject to Lane site lies partially in Flood Zone North West review of (Cinderfield), 3 (north part). The site would Sector, Horley country- Horley have acceptable access to side health and education facilities beyond but would be reliant on facility Green Belt provision at North West Sector, Horley. HW15 Land north SHLAA This site performs reasonably Area of Suitability of Meath well against criteria A – C, and Archaeological subject to Green Lane E, given potential proximity to Potential in the review of (The Coach forthcoming or potential north of the site; country- House), development areas (although site is part of a side Horley services would be via vehicle reserve beyond initially). There would be need sustainable Green Belt for sensitive design and extension in the screening regarding criteria F. DMP (NWH1) – Some of the site could be which means affected by flooding criteria D). this could only be developed as part of a longer- term master plan option US05 Woodside Call for Site performs acceptably or Loss of Suitability Bungalow, Sites well against all criteria. There employments subject to Horley 2015 is potential for privacy issues uses review of given neighbouring residential country- and commercial development. side beyond Green Belt US07 Sandra’s Call for Site performs acceptably or Loss of Suitability Riding Sites well against all criteria. There employments subject to School, The 2015 is potential for privacy issues uses review of Close, given neighbouring residential Impact on country- Horley and commercial development. Gatwick Open side Setting beyond Green Belt HE04 Land at SHLAA Site performs poorly against Conflict with Not Wilgers criteria d) as substantially in Town Park open suitable Farm, Flood Zone 2, and partially in space allocation Smallfield Flood Zone 3 (centre of site). Road, Horley HE05 Land at SHLAA Site performs poorly against None Not Harrowsley criteria d) as substantially in suitable Green Farm, Flood Zone 2, and partially in Smallfield Flood Zone 3 (north part of Road, Horley site). HE10 Land rear of SHLAA Site performs poorly against Impact on Not 17 The criteria b) due to constrained Gatwick Open suitable Close, access which would be Setting Horley unsuited to types of vehicle Site is within movement likely to occur. 57dB noise Donor residential property contour for would be required to create Gatwick Airport access, however, an application refused at the site

Reigate & Banstead Borough Council 36

Ref Site name Site Performance against Additional Overall source Traveller site criteria (Policy Policy/ Suitability CS16/PPTS) Suitability Considerations in 2015 did not propose the demolition of any dwelling. Sites within the Green Belt

BV24 The Old RBBC This site performs reasonably None Suitability Rectory, Develop well against all of the criteria, subject to Rectory ment though access for pedestrians review of Lane, Mangt is limited, and good design Green Belt Woodmanst would be required in what is a erne countryside/transition location, and to avoid negative impacts upon neighbouring residential areas (Criteria E and F). BV09 Hengest SHLAA Site performs acceptably or None Suitability Farm, well against all criteria. subject to Woodmanst Proximity to traveller sites in review of erne Lane, Rectory Lane would need to Green Belt Banstead be taken into account for cumulative impacts. BV12 Land at SHLAA Site performs acceptably or Impact on Suitability Banstead well against all criteria. adjoining SNCI subject to Estate, Access to the site from the and SSSI review of Banstead A217 would need to be Impact on Area Green Belt carefully designed. Site would of Great need to be carefully screened Landscape given the transition location of Value the site within the Area of Potential loss of Great Landscape Value. Grade 2 agricultural land BV16 Land south SHLAA Site performs acceptably or None Suitability of well against all of the criteria subject to Woodmanst but would need to be review of erne Lane, sensitively designed and Green Belt Banstead screened given the countryside location. Proximity to other traveller sites in the Chipstead/Woodmansterne area would need to be taken into account to ensure further provision does not give rise to dominance. BV18 Land south SHLAA Site performs acceptably or Impact on Suitability of Croydon well against all criteria. adjoining subject to Lane, Access would need to be potential SNCI review of Banstead created into the site from Public Right of Green Belt Croydon Lane. Site would Way would need need to be sensitively to be screened as it forms narrow safeguarded landscape gap between Banstead and Woodmansterne. BV19 Land at SHLAA Site performs acceptably or Impact on Suitability KIngscroft well against all criteria. Ability nearby SNCI subject to Road, of residential road providing Impact on review of Woodmanst access to carry additional nearby Ancient Green Belt erne traffic would need Woodland consideration. Site would need Public Right of to be sensitively screened Way would need given proximity of some to be residential dwellings. safeguarded Some loss of informal public

Reigate & Banstead Borough Council 37

Ref Site name Site Performance against Additional Overall source Traveller site criteria (Policy Policy/ Suitability CS16/PPTS) Suitability Considerations amenity use CHW01 Land at Public Site performs acceptably or Impact on AGLV Suitability Woodplace Land – well against all of the criteria Duty to subject to Lane, RBBC but would need to be Cooperate (site review of Coulsdon sensitively designed and adjoins Green Belt screened given the neighbouring countryside location. Provision borough) in this location would be somewhat reliant on education provision in the adjoining Borough. CHW02 Land at Public Site performs acceptably or Impact on AGLV Suitability Outwood Land – well against all of the criteria subject to Lane, RBBC but would need to be review of Chipstead sensitively designed and Green Belt screened given the countryside location. Proximity to the railway line gives rise to some concerns about the amenity of future occupiers. CHW06 Land at SHLAA Site performs acceptably or None Suitability Rectory well against all criteria. subject to Lane Proximity to traveller sites in review of (Drakes Rectory Lane raises some Green Belt Field), concern in terms of cumulative Chipstead impacts. Constrained access via Rectory Lane. Access to health and education facilities may be reliant to some extent on services in adjoining borough. EW03 Land at Public Site performs acceptably or Loss of public Suitability Princes Land – well against all of the criteria open subject to Road, RBBC but would need to be space/allotment review of Earlswood sensitively designed and space Green Belt screened given the countryside location. The site is partially in Flood Zone 2 and Flood Zone 3 and these areas would need to be avoided in allocation in order to pass the sequential test. EW07 Royal SHLAA The site performs acceptably Impact on Listed Suitability National or well against all criteria. Buildings subject to Institute for Localised areas of the site are Duty to review of the Blind, affected by surface water Cooperate (site Green Belt Philanthropic flooding. crosses borough Road, boundary) Redhill EW13 Burnt Oak HELAA This site performs well against SNCI; pockets Suitability Farm, 26 most criteria, although there of ancient subject to Woodhatch could be concerns with regard woodland; a review of Road, to access (criteria B) and locally listed Green Belt Redhill access to services (criteria E). building – would need to take account of these G3 Woodlea Existing Site performs acceptably or None Suitability Stables, Unauthor well against all criteria but subject to Peeks Brook ised Site would need to be sensitively review of Lane, Horley designed and screened given Green Belt the countryside location. Existing site already integrated

Reigate & Banstead Borough Council 38

Ref Site name Site Performance against Additional Overall source Traveller site criteria (Policy Policy/ Suitability CS16/PPTS) Suitability Considerations into and established within the community. The site is partially affected by Flood Zone 2 and these areas should be avoided in any allocation. G4 Treetops/Tre Existing Site performs acceptably or None Suitability ntham, Unauthor well against all criteria but subject to Peeks Brook ised Site would need to be sensitively review of Lane, Horley designed and screened given Green Belt the countryside location. Existing site already integrated into and established within the community. The site is partially affected by Flood Zone 2 and these areas should be avoided in any allocation. Proximity to the motorway gives rise to some concern about the amenity of future occupants however adequate mitigation has been demonstrated through recent applications/appeals. G6 Land at Traveller Site performs acceptably or None Suitability Crossoak Call for well against all of the criteria subject to Lane/Pickett Sites but would need to be review of s Lane, sensitively designed and Green Belt Salfords screened given the countryside location. Proximity to other traveller sites in the Salfords/East Salfords area would need to be taken into account to ensure further does not give rise to dominance. G9a Land at Existing This site performs well against There are tree Suitability Fairacres, site most of the criteria preservation subject to Axes Lane, orders on review of Salfords (1) existing tree Green Belt belts. G9b Land at Existing This site performs well against There are tree Suitability Fairacres, site most of the criteria preservation subject to Axes Lane, orders on review of Salfords (3) existing tree Green Belt belts. G13 Land west of Existing Site performs acceptably or None Suitability Plot 4, Site well against all criteria but subject to Fairacres, extension would need to be sensitively review of Axes Lane, designed and screened given Green Belt Salfords the countryside location. Careful consideration would need to be given to access arrangements to ensure highway safety is maintained and impact on countryside is minimised. G12 Land at Existing Site performs acceptably or None Suitability Kents Field, Site well against all of the criteria subject to Rectory extension but would need to be review of Lane, sensitively designed and Green Belt Chipstead screened given the countryside location. Site would need to be laid out to avoid any potential adverse

Reigate & Banstead Borough Council 39

Ref Site name Site Performance against Additional Overall source Traveller site criteria (Policy Policy/ Suitability CS16/PPTS) Suitability Considerations amenity impact upon neighbouring residential uses to the south. G14 Land at Existing This site performs well against There are tree Suitability Fairacres, site most of the criteria preservation subject to Axes Lane, orders on review of Salfords (2) existing tree Green Belt belts. KBH03 Rookery Public Site performs acceptably or Land is Suitability Farm, Land – well against all of the criteria potentially subject to Mogador RBBC but would need to be contaminated review of Road, Lower sensitively designed and Green Belt Kingswood screened given the countryside location. Access to facilities is restricted, which impacts upon sustainability Need to consider size of site ensure existing community was not dominated. KBH04 Land at Holly Public Site performs acceptably or Proximity to Suitability Lane, Land – well against all of the criteria SNCI/SSSI and subject to Banstead RBBC but would need to be potential impact review of sensitively designed and upon nature Green Belt screened given the conservation countryside location. Access onto Holly Lane would need to be carefully considered to ensure highway safety is maintained. KBH11 Land at SHLAA Site performs acceptably or None Suitability Shrimps well against all criteria. The subject to Field, site has a somewhat review of Chipstead constrained access via a Green Belt Lane, narrow track. The change in Kingswood land levels may make it unsuited to traveller provision. KBH18 Land north SHLAA Site performs acceptably or None Suitability of Bonsor well against all criteria. Site subject to Drive, would have acceptable access review of Kingswood to health and education Green Belt facilities. KBH19 Land east of SHLAA Site performs acceptably or None Suitability Smithy Lane, well against all criteria. Site subject to Lower has somewhat constrained review of Kingswood access via private residential Green Belt lanes with no clear access point. Site would need to be sensitively designed and well screened given the location in the AGLV KBH25 Land north SHLAA Site performs acceptably or Impact on Suitability of Chipstead well against all criteria. historic subject to Lane, Potential for privacy issues earthworks. review of Kingswood given close proximity of Impact on Green Belt residential development. Site settlement gap is affected by surface water between flood risk, particularly in Kingswood and western parts. Site has limited Lower access to public transport Kingswood services with exception of infrequent bus service along A217.

Reigate & Banstead Borough Council 40

Ref Site name Site Performance against Additional Overall source Traveller site criteria (Policy Policy/ Suitability CS16/PPTS) Suitability Considerations KBH26 Land at DMP, The site performs quite well in Area of Great Suitability Beechen Reg 18 terms of the criteria, although Landscape subject to Lane there is a question over Value (AGLV); review of access to the site (criteria B), close to an area Green Belt and access to facilities could of be limited (criteria E). There archaeological would also need to be careful potential and design to mitigate against ancient potential impacts on woodlands/prote neighbouring amenity and cted trees – character. would therefore require very sensitive design KBH28 Legal & DMP, The site performs well against Adjacent to Area Suitability General, Reg 18 the criteria, although proximity of Great subject to Kingswood, to local services and impacts Landscape review of Land parcel upon neighbouring uses are Value (AGLV); Green Belt 1 considerations (criteria E and protected trees; F). footpaths; a locally listed building KBH29 Legal & DMP, The site performs well against Within an Area Suitability General, Reg 18 the criteria, although proximity of Great subject to Kingswood, to local services and impacts Landscape review of Land parcel upon neighbouring uses are Value (AGLV); Green Belt 2 considerations (criteria E and protected trees; F). footpaths M14 Oakley SHLAA Site performs acceptably or Impact on Suitability Farm, 143 well against all criteria. The setting of nearby subject to Bletchingley site is partially within the Listed Buildings review of Road, AONB and as such landscape Green Belt Merstham impact is a key consideration. There may also be impact on the setting of nearby Listed Buildings. M17 Darby SHLAA Site performs acceptably or Impact on Suitability House, well against all of the criteria adjoining SNCI subject to Bletchingley but would need to be review of Road, sensitively designed and Green Belt Merstham screened given the countryside location. Access would need to be secured from Bletchingley Road. Part of the frontage is affected by surface water flooding. M18 164 SHLAA Site performs acceptably or Impact on Listed Suitability Bletchingley well against all of the criteria Buildings subject to Road, but would need to be review of Merstham sensitively designed and Green Belt screened given the countryside location. May have some impact on Listed Buildings within the site. M20 Land south SHLAA Site performs acceptably or None Suitability of Darby well against all of the criteria. subject to House, There is also screening to the review of Merstham south from the wider Green Belt countryside. M21 Land north Public Site performs acceptably or Loss of open Suitability of Radstock Land – well against all of the criteria. formal subject to Way, RBBC Site would need to be recreation review of Merstham sensitively laid out to avoid provision Green Belt

Reigate & Banstead Borough Council 41

Ref Site name Site Performance against Additional Overall source Traveller site criteria (Policy Policy/ Suitability CS16/PPTS) Suitability Considerations impact on the Radstock Way frontage and access via the residential roads would need to be carefully considered. M26 Merstham HELAA The suggested site is large Other policy Suitability Manor and sprawling and therefore considerations, subject to Estate, difficult to assess, but it is aside from review of Merstham considered that some parts of AONB and Green Belt the site would perform AGLV, include reasonably well against all of Site of Nature the criteria. Very careful Conservation design would be needed in Importance some areas, including parts of (SNCI) and the site within the AGLV (for ancient criteria F). Some of the woodland. suggested site is inappropriate Some parts as located within the AONB. adjoin areas of Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI). RE19 Nutfield SHLAA Site performs acceptably or None Suitability Lodge, well against all of the criteria subject to Nutfield but would need to be review of Road, sensitively designed and Green Belt Redhill screened given the countryside location. Topography of the site may mean that parts are unsuited to traveller provision. RE20 Former SHLAA Site performs acceptably or None Suitability Copyhold well against all of the criteria. subject to Works, review of Nutfield Green Belt Road, Redhill RE22 Land at SHLAA Site performs well against all None Suitability Hillsbrow, of the criteria. subject to Nutfield review of Road, Green Belt Redhill RE24 Land north SHLAA Site performs acceptably or None Suitability of Nutfield well against all of the criteria. subject to Road (The review of Paddock), Green Belt Redhill RE25 Land south SHLAA Site performs acceptably or Loss of Suitability of Nutfield well against all of the criteria allotment space subject to Road, but would need to be review of Redhill sensitively designed and Green Belt screened given the countryside location. SPW01 Land at Public Site performs acceptably or Loss of public Suitability Lonesome Land – well against all of the criteria open space subject to Lane, RBBC but would need to be Impact on review of Reigate sensitively designed and adjoining SNCI Green Belt screened given the countryside location. SPW03 New Pond Public Site performs acceptably or Land is Suitability Farm, Land – well against all of the criteria potentially subject to Woodhatch RBBC but would need to be contaminated review of Road, sensitively designed and Green Belt Reigate screened given the

Reigate & Banstead Borough Council 42

Ref Site name Site Performance against Additional Overall source Traveller site criteria (Policy Policy/ Suitability CS16/PPTS) Suitability Considerations countryside location. Access is slightly constrained but unlikely to be prohibitive. SPW04 Land at SHLAA Site performs well against all None Suitability Sandcross of the criteria. subject to Lane, review of Reigate Green Belt SPW05 Land at SHLAA Site performs acceptably or Impact on Suitability Dovers well against all of the criteria. neighbouring subject to Farm, The areas in the central and Listed Buildings review of Dovers southern part of the site are Green Belt Green Road, affected by surface water Reigate flooding. SPW07 Land at SHLAA Site performs acceptably or None Suitability Castle Drive, well against all of the criteria subject to Woodhatch but would need to be review of sensitively designed and Green Belt screened given the countryside edge/transition location. Site would need to be designed and laid out to mitigate against amenity impact on any adjoining residential uses SPW08 Hartswood SHLAA Site performs acceptably or Impact on Suitability Nursery, 146 well against all of the criteria adjoining Listed subject to Doversgreen but would need to be Buildings review of Road, sensitively designed and Green Belt Reigate screened given the countryside location. Potential impact on adjoining listed buildings would also need to be mitigated. SPW10 Land at SHLAA Site performs acceptably or None Suitability Hartswood well against all of the criteria. subject to Farm / Site is partially affected by review of Flanchford Flood Zone 2 (southern part). Green Belt Farm, Reigate SPW11 Garage SHLAA Site performs acceptably or Site is partially Suitability Block/Atherfi well against all of the criteria. previously subject to eld Barn, The site would need to be developed. review of Woodhatch designed and screened Green Belt Road, sensitively to ensure that the Reigate predominantly open residential character of the locality was not conflicted and the visual amenity offered by the surrounding open area was not eroded. SPW16 ASD on the HELAA This site performs reasonably With a Site of Suitability Green, well across most of the criteria, Nature subject to Lonesome albeit with a need for sensitive Conservation review of Lane, design in a countryside area Importance Green Belt Reigate (criteria F), but there would be (SNCI) concerns about access to the site via Lonesome Lane and accessibility via this location to services and facilities (criteria B and E). Additionally, some of the site could be affected by flooding (criteria D).

Reigate & Banstead Borough Council 43

Ref Site name Site Performance against Additional Overall source Traveller site criteria (Policy Policy/ Suitability CS16/PPTS) Suitability Considerations SPW18 Paddock 19, HELAA This site performs well against Adjacent Suitability Dovers criteria A to C, but would statutory listed subject to Green Road require sensitive design in a buildings review of countryside transitional Green Belt location and on a site with potential for flooding on the eastern end (Criteria F/D), and consideration of accessibility for pedestrians via Lonesome Lane (Criteria E). SS02 Land to the SHLAA Site performs acceptably or Land is Suitability west of well against all of the criteria. potentially subject to Bonehurst Access from Bonehurst Road contaminated. review of Road, would need to be carefully Green Belt Salfords considered from a highway safety perspective. Some concern that the site would not have ideally close access to health and education facilities. SS06 Land at SHLAA Site performs acceptably or Land is Suitability Rosemary well against all of the criteria potentially subject to Farm, but would need to be contaminated. review of Ironsbottom sensitively designed and Green Belt Road, screened given the Sidlow countryside location. Scale of site would need to be small to ensure traveller provision would not dominate the small village community of Sidlow. The site is also partially affected by flood risk (Zones 2 and 3) which would need to be avoided in any allocation for traveller accommodation. SS12 Land SHLAA Site performs acceptably or None Suitability between well against all of the criteria. subject to Mason’s Proximity to existing traveller review of Bridge sites in East Salfords and Green Belt Road/Pickett cumulative impacts could give s Land and rise to dominance in the local the railway, community. Proximity to Salfords railway line could affect (Land east of amenity of future occupiers of Salfords) the site. The site is affected by Flood Zones 2 and 3 – these areas would need to be avoided for traveller provision. Whilst on the outer edge from the existing urban area, the site would have acceptable access to health and education facilities. SS15 Horley SHLAA Site performs acceptably or Site is partially Suitability Place, well against all of the criteria previously subject to Bonehurst but would need to be developed. review of Road, Horley sensitively designed and Impact on Green Belt screened given the settlement gap. countryside location. The site is affected to a limited extent by flooding and any site would need to be laid out to avoid these areas. SS17 Land south SHLAA Site performs acceptably or None Suitability

Reigate & Banstead Borough Council 44

Ref Site name Site Performance against Additional Overall source Traveller site criteria (Policy Policy/ Suitability CS16/PPTS) Suitability Considerations of Copsleigh well against all of the criteria. subject to Avenue, Access on to the A23 may review of Salfords present some highway safety Green Belt issues, and the only other option is between existing residential properties. Proximity to the railway line and adjoining industrial uses could have an adverse impact on the amenity of future occupiers of the site. The site is partially affected by Flood Zone 2. SS22 Land at SHLAA Site performs acceptably or Impact on Suitability Bonehurst well against all of the criteria. landscape gap subject to Farm, Access to the A23 would be between review of Salfords reliant on completion of the Salfords and Green Belt eastern link road of the North Horley. West sector. Parts of the site Impact on areas are affected by Flood Zones 2 of and 3 (the site is bounded to archaeological the south by the River potential. Mole/Burstow Stream) which would need to be avoided for traveller provision, and parts of the site are affected by surface water flooding. Accessibility to many local services and facilities is currently poor, although some improvement will result once the services/facilities at the North West Sector are complete. SS27 Field on DMP, This site performs reasonably There are Suitability (part of Bonehurst Reg 18 well against the criteria protected trees subject to SS22) Road although there could be and woodlands review of between concerns regarding access in the area. Green Belt Cambridge and accessibility. There would Hotel and also be a need for careful Lawson's design avoiding impacts on the Timber Yard, green nature of the area Bonehurst (Criteria F). Road, Horley TW1 16 Land at the HELAA This site performs well against None Suitability Priory, Sturts all criteria, except that public subject to Lane, transport could be limited and review of Walton on walking difficult due to lack of Green Belt the Hill footways. US02 Land at Call for Site performs acceptably or Impact on Suitability Downs Way, Sites well against all of the criteria. AGLV. subject to 81 2015 There may be potential of Impact on review of Kingswood amenity impact on adjoining adjacent Green Belt Road, residential properties, given Scheduled Tadworth close proximity. Currently no Ancient access to the site; would need Monument. to be formed from the east and Impact on improved to provide adequate unprotected access, as access via the rear trees within the of 81 Kingswood Road is site. constrained. Site would need Retention of to be sensitively designed public footpath. given that this is a countryside/transition location,

Reigate & Banstead Borough Council 45

Ref Site name Site Performance against Additional Overall source Traveller site criteria (Policy Policy/ Suitability CS16/PPTS) Suitability Considerations and taking the Area of Great Landscape value into account. US06 145 Call for Site performs acceptably or Impact on area Suitability Sandcross Sites well against all criteria. Site and individual subject to Lane, 2015 would need to be sensitively Tree review of Reigate designed in this Preservation Green Belt countryside/transition location. Orders. HE21 Acres Planning The site performs reasonably None Not Stables applic- well against some of the suitable ation criteria, though it would be quite remote, providing reduced scope for integration and less access to public transport services (Criteria A and E). It would nonetheless provide a discreet and shielded location (Criteria F). However access to the site would be very constrained (Criteria B). BV15 Land south SHLAA Site performs acceptably or Impact on Not of Holly Hill well against criteria a) to f). ancient suitable Park, Concerns over potential woodland and Banstead constrained access from cul- protected trees de-sac. Site would need to be Potential impact sensitively screened, given the upon adjoining countryside/transition location. Historic Park The site may impact on the and Garden and setting of nearby Listed nearby Listed Buildings and Historic Park & Buildings Garden. However, site performs poorly against other policy considerations; site is almost wholly covered by woodland, some of which is ancient woodland and parts are protected by TPOs. Development would result in the loss of significant woodland and could impact on nature conservation. CHW07 Land off SHLAA Site performs poorly against None Not Harden criteria e) given poor suitable Farm Close, accessibility to facilities and is Netherne, very remote from the nearest Coulsdon main service centre. Site also performs poorly against criteria b) given the highly constrained road access and likely impact of internal movements on neighbouring properties. Site size would also need to be small to ensure existing village community was not dominated. EW12 Redhill HELAA The site performs well against Within a Not Aerodrome several of the criteria (A – D) Biodiversity suitable and could be adequate in Opportunity terms of access to facilities if Area (BOA) and built as part of a wider potential SNCI; development (criteria E). tree protection - Sensitive design would be but the site is

Reigate & Banstead Borough Council 46

Ref Site name Site Performance against Additional Overall source Traveller site criteria (Policy Policy/ Suitability CS16/PPTS) Suitability Considerations required (criteria F). large enough to potentially avoid these

However, this site is also included within the Regulation 19 DMP as a Safeguarded Site (for post- plan period) and, as such, no development of Traveller sites could happen until after the current plan- period (2026). Further Traveller need would then also need to be assessed. KBH02 Land at SHLAA Site performs poorly against None Not Brighton criteria b) as no direct access suitable Road, Burgh from highway; access from Heath A217 would be unacceptable, therefore alternative access arrangements would need to be found. KBH09 Land at SHLAA Site performs poorly against None Not Sandy Lane, criteria b) as constrained suitable Kingswood access to main highway relying on residential lanes which raises concerns of highway safety and disturbance issues. KBH15 Land off SHLAA Site performs poorly against None Not Copt Hill criteria b) given highly suitable Lane, constrained access to the Kingswood main highway via residential lanes and narrow private track. Location is also sensitive given siting within the AGLV. KBH16 Land west of SHLAA Site performs poorly against None Not Holly Lodge category a) as the site would suitable Lane, be remote from the urban Kingswood area. Potential that traveller provision in this location may dominate existing small community at Holly Lodge. KBH20 Land at SHLAA Site performs poorly against None Not Kingswood criteria b) as it has a highly suitable House, constrained access via a Kingswood narrow track unsuited to the types of vehicle movements likely to occur. KBH21 Land north SHLAA Site performs poorly against Impact on AGLV No suitable of Copt Hill criteria b) as it has a highly Impact on Lane, constrained access to the protected trees Kingswood highway and only via two Impact on open narrow roads – Copt Hill Lane landscape gap or Canons Lane, which would between

Reigate & Banstead Borough Council 47

Ref Site name Site Performance against Additional Overall source Traveller site criteria (Policy Policy/ Suitability CS16/PPTS) Suitability Considerations likely be unsuited to the types Banstead/Burgh of vehicle movements likely to Heath and occur. Kingswood RE08 Battlebridge Public Site performs poorly against Loss of open Not Recreation Land – criteria b) given the formal suitable Ground, RBBC constrained access to the site recreation/sport New via a narrow access road and provision Battlebridge possible highway safety Lane, conflict with the school Merstham proposed on the adjoining site. Access directly onto the A23 would also conflict with highway safety. RH01 Land at SHLAA Site performs poorly against Land is Not Clifton's criteria b) given the highly potentially suitable Lane, constrained access to the contaminated Reigate main highway via a single track lane which passes under a narrow rail bridge – unsuited to the types of movements which would occur. Location is also sensitive given siting within the AGLV. SPW09 Land at SHLAA Site performs poorly against Impact on Not Shepherd’s criteria b) given the only Historic Park suitable Lodge Farm, access to the site is via a and adjoining Park Lane private residential road which SNCI East, would likely be unsuited to Reigate serve the movements associated with a traveller site. Topography of the site also affects suitability for traveller provision and worsens the potential adverse landscape impact. SS01 Land at SHLAA Site performs poorly against Duty to Not Rushmeads, criteria e) given poor Cooperate given suitable Horse Hill, accessibility to facilities. The potential impact Horley site is also very remote from on adjoining the nearest main service borough. centre. Land is potentially contaminated. SS04 Fontigarry SHLAA Site performs poorly against Land is Not Farm, category e) and would have potentially suitable Reigate more limited access to, and contaminated. Road, would not be served well by, Sidlow health and education facilities. SS05 Land south SHLAA Site performs poorly against Land is Not of Horse Hill, criteria e) given poor potentially suitable Horley accessibility to facilities. The contaminated. site is also very remote from the nearest main service centre. SS07 Land south SHLAA Site performs poorly against Impact on Not of Duxhurst category e) and would have adjoining nature suitable Lane, Sidlow more limited access to, and conservation would not be served well by, site. health and education facilities. SS10 Millstream SHLAA Site performs poorly against Land is Not Farm, criteria d) as the site is potentially suitable Brighton substantially affected by Flood contaminated.

Reigate & Banstead Borough Council 48

Ref Site name Site Performance against Additional Overall source Traveller site criteria (Policy Policy/ Suitability CS16/PPTS) Suitability Considerations Road, Zone 2 and the northern half of Salfords the site is within Flood Zone 3. Proximity to other traveller sites in the Salfords/East Salfords area would need to be taken into account to ensure further provision does not give rise to dominance. SS11 High Trees SHLAA Site performs poorly against None Not Nursing criteria e) as accessibility to suitable Home, many local services and Horsehill, facilities is poor given the level Norwood of detachment from the urban Hill, Horley area The site has relatively poor access to public transport services. SS14 Land north SHLAA The site performs poorly Impact on Not of Axes against category e) as access protected trees. suitable Lane, to many local services is poor Impact on Salfords given the level of detachment setting of from the existing urban area. adjoining Listed The site has relatively poor Buildings. access to public transport services. SS18 Land at SHLAA Site performs poorly against Loss of Not Oakfield, criteria f) given the visual protected suitable Axes Lane, amenity and positive woodland/trees Salfords contribution which the densely wooded site makes to the countryside character. Proximity to other traveller sites in the Salfords/East Salfords area would need to be taken into account to ensure further site does not give rise to dominance. SS21 Land at SHLAA Site performs poorly against Impact on Not Duxhurst criteria e) as accessibility to ancient suitable and Sidlow local services and facilities is woodland. Farms, limited given the level of Impact on Sidlow detachment from the existing setting of Listed urban area. The site is poorly Buildings. served by public transport Impact on services. adjoining SNCI TW01 Land at SHLAA Site performs poorly against Land is Not Dorking criteria b) as there is no potentially suitable Road, access point except for a contaminated. Walton on private driveway serving two Loss of common the Hill residential properties. Access land. from Dorking Road would need to be very carefully considered in respect of highway safety and may constrain development. TW02 Land to the SHLAA Site performs poorly against Land is Not east of criteria b) given the highly potentially suitable Ebbisham constrained access to the site contaminated. Lane, via a residential cul-de-sac Walton on and narrow track which would the Hill be unsuitable to support the types of movements generated by such a site.

Reigate & Banstead Borough Council 49

Ref Site name Site Performance against Additional Overall source Traveller site criteria (Policy Policy/ Suitability CS16/PPTS) Suitability Considerations TW04 British SHLAA Site performs poorly against None Not Transport criteria f) as development suitable Police would be out of character in Training this predominantly suburban Centre, environment. Access and Sandlands movements within the site Grove, would likely have an adverse Tadworth impact on adjoining residential properties. TW06 Land at SHLAA Site performs poorly against None Not Sandlands criteria b) given the highly suitable Road, constrained access to the site Walton on via a residential cul-de-sac the Hill which would be unsuitable to support the types of movements generate by such a site. TW08 Land at Frith SHLAA Site performs poorly against None Not Park, Walton criteria e) as the site would be suitable on the Hill on the outer edge of the existing urban area, and would have more limited access to, and would not be particularly well served by, health and education facilities. US01 Clayhall Call for Site performs poorly against Impact on Not Farm, Sites criteria b) as access is via a adjoining SNCIs. suitable Reigate 2015 series of narrow lanes, and Impact on thus constrained to the adjoining RIGS. highway, and would be Impact on unsuitable for the types of adjoining vehicle movements likely to ancient occur. woodland areas. Impact on setting of Listed Buildings within site. Impact on AGLV. US04 Plot 18, Call for Site performs poorly against Impact on Not Soloms Sites criteria b) as the site access is adjoining AGLV. suitable Court Road, 2015 constrained via the private Impact on Banstead road, and would unlikely be adjoining suited to the types of vehicle Potential SNCI. movements likely to occur. Impact on The size of the site would also adjoining constrain internal vehicle ancient manoeuvring. Site would need woodland. to be sensitively designed due Impact on to being a unprotected countryside/transition location. trees within the site. US08 Plot 10, Housing Site performs poorly against None Not Axeland SHLAA criteria b) given that there is no suitable Park, Axes Update access into the site, and as it Lane, 2016 is not known what the Salfords ownership status is of neighbouring plots/land into which the field has been subdivided for disposal, it is not known if access would be achievable or adequate to provide for the types of

Reigate & Banstead Borough Council 50

Ref Site name Site Performance against Additional Overall source Traveller site criteria (Policy Policy/ Suitability CS16/PPTS) Suitability Considerations vehicular movement likely to occur. G1 Crosswinds, Traveller Site performs poorly against None Not Collendean Call for criteria e) given poor suitable Lane, Horley Sites accessibility to facilities. The site is also very remote from the nearest main service centre. G2 Land at Traveller Site performs poorly against None Not Collendean Call for criteria e) given poor suitable Lane,/Norwo Sites accessibility to facilities. The od Hill, site is also very remote from Horley the nearest main service centre. G5 Summers Existing Site performs poorly against None Not Place, Unauthor criteria c) given the extreme suitable Perrylands ised Site proximity to the motorway and Lane, Horley no known prospect for mitigation. Access to the site is also constrained via a narrow private track. G11 Highlands, Traveller This site performs poorly The site is within Not Blackhorse Call for against criteria f) given the the AGLV and suitable Lane, Lower Sites countryside location in the very close to the Kingswood AGLV, proximity to the AONB AONB and impacts upon views into and out of the AONB (confirmed by previous planning appeals) which is very close to the east and west.

Reigate & Banstead Borough Council 51

Stage 4: Assessing Availability and Achievability

4.21 For all sites considered to be suitable or potentially suitable for Traveller provision, landowners or those promoting the site have been contacted to confirm whether they would be willing to make the site (either in part or in whole) available for delivery of Traveller accommodation.

4.22 Where the landowner would be willing to release the site for Traveller provision, this correspondence also sought confirmation of whether there are any constraints (such as occupational leases, operational or relocation requirements, unresolved multiple landownerships or legal issues such as covenants) which could prevent availability.

4.23 In the event that the Council has been unable to ascertain landownership or has not received confirmation of the intentions or willingness of the landowner to release the land for traveller provision, the site is considered to be unavailable.

4.24 A key provision of PPTS is that sites for Traveller accommodation should be sustainable socially and environmentally, but also economically. In addition, viability remains a prime consideration in whether sites can be considered “deliverable” in the context of the NPPF and PPTS. The Core Strategy also makes clear that “any site considered for allocation must be deliverable (including affordable to its intended occupiers) to ensure that needs are met”.

4.25 Whilst it is difficult to assess mathematically the viability of a site for Traveller provision given their unique nature, there are a number of relevant considerations. Firstly, achievability is inextricably linked to landowner intentions and, as such, a lack of willingness to release the site for traveller provision is indicative that a site is not achievable.

4.26 In addition, the presence of existing high-value uses (such as residential or commercial uses), or the real prospect of such uses being achieved on site, may also have implications for the affordability for such uses without any funding or financial subsidy.

4.27 In addition to testing economic viability, the assessment of achievability also considers, based on market evidence, the likely appetite and demand for the type of units which the site would provide, potential rates of delivery and identifies, based on the assessment of site constraints, any possible ‘abnormal’ factors which could impact upon viability.

4.28 For each site, an assessment is also made of the actions, if any, which are required to bring the site forward or overcome constraints to development, the

Reigate & Banstead Borough Council 52 Traveller SHLAA 2017

likely complexity of such actions and how these actions may impact upon delivery timescales.

4.29 All sites concluded as being suitable or potentially suitable against the relevant criteria, and in light of other policy considerations, have been subjected to an assessment of their availability and potential achievability for traveller provision, in accordance with the process set out above, which has included contacting site owners/agents to ascertain availability.

4.30 The conclusions of these assessments are set out in Table 4 below which includes a brief commentary on landowner intentions/willingness to release the site for traveller provision, any known legal or ownership constraints, and an assessment of the likely viability/affordability of traveller provision, taking into account existing/potential alternative uses for the site (as well as landowner expectations).

4.31 It should be noted that all sites considered to be suitable, available, and achievable, as set out in the table below, fall within the Green Belt, and are still subject to review of the Green Belt classification. This classification recognises that whilst the site could offer a suitable and sustainable location for traveller provision and there is a reasonable prospect that it would be deliverable, further work is required prior to allocation to determine whether the site could be removed from the Green Belt, with little or no harm to its openness and integrity. A Green Belt review of the relevant sites is undertaken in section 5 further below.

Reigate & Banstead Borough Council 53 Traveller SHLAA 2017

Table 4: Site Availability Conclusions

Ref Site name Suitability Commentary Overall conclusion on Estimated Conclusion Availability/Achievability Capacity Sites within the urban area EW08 Hockley Business Suitable The site is owned by a house builder and the site was granted Not available/achievable N/A Centre, Hooley Lane, planning permission for residential development in 2017. The Redhill landowner would therefore be unwilling to make the site available for traveller provision. There is also a reasonably high existing use value given the existing uses and therefore it would be unlikely to be affordable or viable for traveller provision. EW10 101-105 Horley Road, Suitable The site owned by multiple residential landowners. Not available/achievable N/A Earlswood The site comprises three residential plots of detached houses. The site was granted outline consent in 2011 for 8 semi-detached houses, however, there has been no progress since then to enable development. Subsequently two of the dwellings (Nos. 101 and 103) have been subject to further planning applications in 2013 and 2015 for replacement residential schemes, whilst No. 105 was granted permission for residential extensions in 2014. The landowners would therefore be unwilling to make the site available for traveller provision. There is also a reasonably high existing use value given the existing residential uses and therefore it would be unlikely to be affordable or viable for traveller provision. EW11 19-23 Woodhatch Road, Suitable The site is owned by a local registered housing provider. Not available/achievable N/A Redhill The site comprises warehousing/commercial and informal open space. The site benefits from planning consent for an affordable residential scheme, and the landowner is bringing forward the site in accordance with the existing consent. The landowner would therefore be unwilling to make the site available for traveller provision. There is also a reasonably high existing use value given the existing uses and therefore it would be unlikely to be affordable or viable for traveller provision. HC01 Land at the Grove, Suitable The site is owned by a private organisation and is actively in use for Not available/achievable N/A Horley airport car-parking. The landowner has previously confirmed that availability of the site is contingent upon relocation of the existing uses for which at this point there is no known prospect; the landowner was contacted in December 2015, however, no response was received to ascertain availability of the site. Therefore, it is likely that the situation at the

Reigate & Banstead Borough Council 54 Traveller SHLAA 2017

Ref Site name Suitability Commentary Overall conclusion on Estimated Conclusion Availability/Achievability Capacity site remains the same, and the site is not available for traveller provision. The landowner’s expectation of land values, given the existing Local Plan housing allocation, means that traveller provision is unlikely to be viable. HC06 Land at Yattendon Suitable The site is owned by Surrey CC and forms part of Yattendon School. Not available/achievable N/A School, Oakwood Road, The site benefits from a recent existing planning consent (2015) to Horley deliver 7 new homes. Capital receipt from sale of the site is intended to fund school improvements; given the existing consent and the need to maximise value, the site is unlikely to be affordable or viable for traveller provision, and is not available. HE08 121 Smallfield Road, Suitable The site is owned by a national house builder. Not available/achievable N/A Horley The site comprises a single residential dwelling in large grounds. The site benefits from outline planning consent for up to 36 dwellings and pre-commencement conditions have been discharged (in 2015), therefore, the site is not available for traveller provision. HE20 Laburnum, Haroldslea Suitable This site is being promoted for residential (market and affordable) Not available/achievable N/A Drive, Horley housing and self-build plots, as part of the SHLAA/HELAA – the respondent did not tick the option for Traveller provision on the form. HW03 Land at Bonehurst Suitable The site is owned by a single landowner. Not available/achievable Road, Horley The landowners agent was contacted who confirmed that the site is not available for traveller provision HW08 Landens Farm Suitable The site is owned by a regional house builder. Not available/achievable N/A Buildings, Meath Green The site comprises agricultural buildings and derelict residential Lane, Horley properties. The site benefits from planning consent for 9 new dwellings, and pre- commencement conditions are currently being discharged. The site is therefore not available for traveller provision. Given the existing residential consent on the site, and the potential for further residential development, the value of the site is likely to be such that traveller use would not be viable or affordable. HW09 The Croft/Meath Suitable The site is owned by a private individual and has been promoted for Not available/achievable N/A Paddock, Meath Green housing development. Lane, Horley The site comprises a residential property with paddock. The landowner was contacted in December 2015 and has confirmed that the site is not available for traveller provision. HW10 59-61, Brighton Road, Suitable This site is being promoted for residential (market) housing, as part Not available/achievable N/A Horley of the SHLAA/HELAA – the respondent did not tick the option for Traveller provision on the form.

Reigate & Banstead Borough Council 55 Traveller SHLAA 2017

Ref Site name Suitability Commentary Overall conclusion on Estimated Conclusion Availability/Achievability Capacity M12 Merstham Library, Suitable The site is owned by Surrey County Council. Not available/achievable N/A Weldon Way, Merstham The site is then intended to be redeveloped. Given the landowners intentions, the site would not be made available for traveller provision.

MSJ03 Redhill Ambulance Suitable The site is owned by the SE Coast Ambulance Service. Not available/achievable N/A Station, Pendleton The site is in active use as an ambulance station – redevelopment of Road, Redhill the site would be dependent upon service needs. The landowner was contacted in December 2015 and has confirmed that the site is not available for traveller provision. N10 14 Brighton Road, Suitable The site is owned by a developer. Not available/achievable N/A Banstead The existing use on the site comprises a detached residential dwelling. The site benefits from planning consent (2013) for a block of 9 flats and pre-commencement conditions have been discharged during 2014-2015. The site is not available for traveller provision. Given the existing residential consent on the site, the value of the site is likely to be such that traveller use would not be viable or affordable. P04 Former DeBurgh Suitable The site is owned by Surrey County Council. Not available/achievable N/A School, Chetwode The site benefits from a planning consent for a residential Road, Preston development of 180 homes as part of the regeneration of the Preston Estate. The site has an existing Local Plan allocation for housing and therefore expectations of value reflect this. Furthermore, capital receipts from the sale are required to fund improvements and infrastructure elsewhere on the estate and therefore the site would not be made available for traveller provision. RC18 Reigate Business Suitable The site is owned by a private organisation. Not available/achievable N/A Mews, Albert Road The existing uses at the site comprise office and industrial units. The North, Reigate vast majority of commercial units on the site are vacant following lease expiry in 2014. The site benefits from a planning consent (most recent in 2015) for a residential development comprising flats and houses, and would therefore not be made available for traveller provision. Given the consent for housing development, it would not be affordable or viable for traveller provision. RC24 Royal Mail Delivery Suitable This site is being promoted for residential (market) housing, as part Not available/achievable N/A Office, Rushworth Road, of the SHLAA/HELAA – the respondent did not tick the option for Reigate, RH2 0PR Traveller provision on the form.

Reigate & Banstead Borough Council 56 Traveller SHLAA 2017

Ref Site name Suitability Commentary Overall conclusion on Estimated Conclusion Availability/Achievability Capacity RE04 Colebrook Day Centre, Suitable The site is owned by Surrey County Council. Not available/achievable N/A Noke Drive, Redhill The existing uses on the site comprise community uses and a garden centre. The landowner was contacted in December 2015 and has confirmed that the site is not available for traveller provision. RE07 Royal Mail Sorting Suitable The site is owned by Royal Mail and is actively in use as a main Not available/achievable N/A Office, St Anne’s Drive, Sorting Office for the area. Redevelopment and availability of the site Redhill is dependent upon relocation of the existing operations. The landowner was has confirmed that the site is not available for redevelopment. RE10 Gasholder site, Hooley Suitable There are no known plans at this stage to remove the gasholders, Not available/achievable N/A Lane, Redhill and no contact details were available for the landowner to ascertain availability. Therefore it cannot be considered available for traveller provision. RE21 Quarryside Business Suitable The freehold of the site is owned by a single private individual. Not available/achievable N/A Park, Thorntonside, There are a number of active occupational leasehold interests in the Redhill site which would need to expire or be acquired to make the site available for traveller provision. The landowner was contacted in December 2015 and has confirmed that the site is not available for traveller provision. The landowners expectation of land values, given the existing Local Plan housing allocation, means that traveller provision is unlikely to be viable. RW11 Land at The Frenches, Suitable The site is owned by a utility company. Not available/achievable N/A Redhill The existing uses on the site comprise a vacant clubhouse and informal open space. The site benefits from a planning consent (2013) for 11 residential units and pre-commencement conditions have been discharged. More recently, a planning application has been submitted (February 2016) for a variation of this previous consent to increase accommodation in the roof space of residential units. Therefore, the site would not be made available for traveller provision. Given the consent for housing development, it would not be affordable or viable for traveller provision. RW2 03 Former Territorial Army Suitable This site was on a disposal database by the Ministry of Defence in Not available/achievable N/A Site, Linkfield House, 3 2013. It was not possible to confirm availability. Batts Lane, Redhill No response was received from the landowner. RW21 Donyngs Carpark and Suitable The site is owned by RBBC. Not available/achievable N/A Indoor Bowls Centre The site is currently leased to Donyngs Leisure Centre and the Bowls Car Park Centre. The landowner was contacted in August 2017 and has confirmed that the site is not available.

Reigate & Banstead Borough Council 57 Traveller SHLAA 2017

Ref Site name Suitability Commentary Overall conclusion on Estimated Conclusion Availability/Achievability Capacity TW11 Former Royal Phoenix, Suitable The site is owned by a private individual. Not available/achievable N/A Dorking Road, Tadworth The site comprises a disused restaurant. The site benefits from planning consent (2013) for 11 flats which has been implemented. Therefore the site is not available for traveller provision. Sites in non-Green Belt countryside HE17 Land on the south side Suitable This site is being promoted for residential (market and affordable) Not available/achievable N/A of Smallfield Road, housing and care home/extra-care provision, as part of the Horley SHLAA/HELAA – the respondent did not tick the option for Traveller provision on the form. HW15 Land north of Meath Suitable This site is being promoted for residential (market) housing, as part Not available/achievable N/A Green Lane (The Coach of the SHLAA/HELAA – the respondent did not tick the option for House), Horley Traveller provision on the form. HC11 Bayhorne Farm, Suitability The site is owned by Surrey County Council. Not available/achievable N/A Apperlie Drive, Horley subject to The site comprises agricultural land. review of The landowner was contacted in December 2015 and has confirmed countryside that the site is not available for traveller provision. beyond Green Belt HC12 Fishers Farm, Limes Suitability The site is owned by a national housebuilder. Not available/achievable N/A Avenue, Horley subject to The site comprises agricultural land. review of The landowner was contacted in December 2015 and has confirmed countryside that the site is not available for traveller provision. beyond Green Belt HC18 Meadowcroft, Balcombe Suitability The site is owned by a private organisation. Not available/achievable N/A Road, Horley subject to The site benefits from recent consent (reference 15/02215/AP30) for review of a conversion of the existing offices to form a single residential countryside dwelling. Given this consent, there is a reasonably high alternative beyond use value associated with the site and traveller provision is therefore Green Belt unlikely to be viable or affordable. Therefore the site is not available for traveller provision. HC28 Land at Meadowcroft Suitability The site is owned by a private company. Not available/achievable N/A House, Balcombe Road, subject to The site comprises office accommodation in large grounds. Horley review of The landowner was contacted in December 2015 and has confirmed countryside that the site is not available for traveller provision. beyond Green Belt HE06 Land at Inholms, Suitability The site is owned by a regional house builder. Not available/achievable N/A Haroldslea Drive, Horley subject to The site comprises agricultural/grazing land. review of The site benefits from outline planning consent (reference

Reigate & Banstead Borough Council 58 Traveller SHLAA 2017

Ref Site name Suitability Commentary Overall conclusion on Estimated Conclusion Availability/Achievability Capacity countryside 12/01973/OUT) for the erection of 50 dwellings, and all pre- beyond commencement conditions have been recently discharged. Given Green Belt this consent, there is a reasonably high alternative use value associated with the site and traveller provision is therefore unlikely to be viable or affordable, and is therefore not considered to be available for traveller provision. HE11 Land adjoining 61 Suitability The site is owned by a private individual. Not available/achievable N/A Silverlea Gardens, subject to The site comprises agricultural/grazing land. Horley review of The landowner was contacted in December 2015 and has confirmed countryside that the site is not available for traveller provision. beyond Green Belt HW06 Land north of Meath Suitability The site is owned by a private individual. Not available/achievable N/A Green Lane (“The subject to The site comprises agricultural land. Cottage”), Horley review of The landowner was contacted in December 2015 and has confirmed countryside that the site is not available for traveller provision. beyond Green Belt HW07 Land at Meath Green Suitability The site is owned by a private individual. Not available/achievable N/A Lane (Cinderfield), subject to The site comprises agricultural land. Horley review of The landowner was contacted in December 2015 and has confirmed countryside that the site is not available for traveller provision. beyond Green Belt US05 Woodside Bungalow, Suitability The site is owned by a single landowner. Not available/achievable N/A Horley subject to The site comprises commercial and residential development, with a review of paddock. countryside The landowner was contacted in December 2015 and has confirmed beyond that the site is not available for traveller provision. Green Belt US07 Sandra’s Riding School, Suitability The site is owned by a private company. Not available/achievable N/A The Close, Horley subject to The site comprises residential curtilage and a semi-natural open review of space. countryside The landowner was contacted in December 2015 and has confirmed beyond that the site is not available for traveller provision. Green Belt Sites within the Green Belt BV16 Land south of Suitability The site is owned by a consortium of private individuals. Available/Achievable Up to 15 Woodmansterne Lane, subject to The site comprises equestrian and grazing land. pitches Banstead review of The landowners’ agent was contacted in December 2015 and has Green Belt confirmed that the site is available for traveller provision.

Reigate & Banstead Borough Council 59 Traveller SHLAA 2017

Ref Site name Suitability Commentary Overall conclusion on Estimated Conclusion Availability/Achievability Capacity The site does not benefit from any planning consent that would add alternative use value, and therefore, traveller provision is likely to be viable and affordable. BV18 Land south of Croydon Suitability The site is owned by a number of individuals. Available/Achievable Up to 15 Lane, Banstead subject to The site comprises grazing land. pitches review of The main landowner was contacted in December 2015 and has Green Belt confirmed that the site is available for traveller provision. The site does not benefit from any planning consent that would add alternative use value, and therefore, traveller provision is likely to be viable and affordable. The main landowner has also confirmed that subject to the removal of the site from the Green Belt, the required finances are in place to implement housing development at the site, which would be a mix of market and social housing. G3 Woodlea Stables, Peeks Suitability The site is owned and occupied by travellers. Available/Achievable 6 pitches Brook Lane, Horley subject to The site is currently occupied and numerous applications have been review of made to regularise the use of the site. Green Belt Given this, the site is considered to be both available and viable/affordable for traveller provision. G4 Treetops/Trentham, Suitability The site and adjoining house are owned by travellers. Available/Achievable 1 2 pitch es Peeks Brook Lane, subject to The current landowner has actively pursued traveller provision on the Horley review of land through planning applications and the plan-making process. Green Belt Given this, the site is considered to be both available and viable/affordable for traveller provision. G6 Land at Crossoak Lane / Suitability The site was promoted to the Council through the traveller site Call Available/Achievable 10 pitches Picketts Lane, Salfords subject to for Sites in 2013, and is owned by travellers. review of It has been confirmed that there are no legal constraints and the site Green Belt would be available for traveller provision. G9a Land at Fairacres,Axes Suitability Availability confirmed by the landowner for use of the site as a Available/Achievable 1 plot Lane, Salfords (1) subject to travelling show-persons plot review of Green Belt G9b Land at Fairacres,Axes Suitability Availability confirmed by the landowner for use of the site as a Available/Achievable 4 plot Lane, Salfords (3) subject to travelling show-people’s plots review of Green Belt G13 Land west of Plot 4, Suitability The site is owned by travelling showpeople. Available/Achievable 3 plots Fairacres, Axes Lane, subject to A planning application for travelling showpeople plots has been Salfords review of pursued on the site. Green Belt It is therefore considered to be available for traveller provision. G12 Land at Kents Field, Suitability The site is owned by travellers. Available/Achievable 2 pitches Rectory Lane, subject to The site is currently occupied and the existing residents have Chipstead review of promoted expansion of the site onto adjoining land in their ownership

Reigate & Banstead Borough Council 60 Traveller SHLAA 2017

Ref Site name Suitability Commentary Overall conclusion on Estimated Conclusion Availability/Achievability Capacity Green Belt and reconfiguration of the existing site. Given this, the site is considered to be both available and viable/affordable for traveller provision. BV24 The Old Rectory, Suitability A letter was sent to the contact details on the land registry report in Not available/achievable N/A Rectory Lane, subject to July 2017 but no response was received. As such the site is not Woodmansterne review of available. Green Belt BV09 Hengest Farm, Suitability The site is owned by a private individual. Not available/achievable N/A Woodmansterne Lane, subject to The site comprises agricultural land and buildings. Banstead review of The landowner was contacted in December 2015 and has confirmed Green Belt that the site is not available for traveller provision. BV12 Land at Banstead Suitability The site is owned by a single landowner, a private company. Not available/achievable N/A Estate, Banstead subject to The site comprises agricultural fields/ grazing land. review of The landowner was contacted in December 2015, however, no Green Belt response was received, therefore it cannot be confirmed the site is available for traveller provision. BV19 Land at Kingscroft Suitability The site is owned by a large number of private individuals (in total Not available/achievable N/A Road, Woodmansterne subject to 94) who own separate plots across the site. Only 19 plot owners review of have previously submitted information to the Council to promote their Green Belt plots for development. The site is unlikely to be available for traveller provision given the uncertainty regarding availability of the entire site and its deliverability, given the current ownership issues. CHW01 Land at Woodplace Suitability The site is owned by RBBC. Not available/achievable N/A Lane, Coulsdon subject to The site comprises predominantly agricultural use. review of The landowner has confirmed that the site is not available for Green Belt traveller provision. CHW02 Land at Outwood Lane, Suitability The site is owned by RBBC. Not available/achievable N/A Chipstead subject to The site comprises predominantly agricultural use. review of The landowner has confirmed that the site is not available for Green Belt traveller provision. CHW06 Land at Rectory Lane Suitability The site is owned by a private individual. Not available/achievable N/A (Drakes Field), subject to The site comprises agricultural fields. Chipstead review of The landowner was contacted in December 2015 and has confirmed Green Belt that the site is not available for traveller provision. EW03 Land at Princes Road, Suitability The site is owned by RBBC. Not available/achievable N/A Earlswood subject to Parts of the site are actively used as public open space and parts as review of allotments. Alternative provision of both uses would be required if the Green Belt site was released for traveller provision. However, alternative provision is not available at this time, therefore the site is not available for traveller provision. EW07 Royal National Institute Suitability The site is owned by the Royal National Institute for the Blind. Not available/achievable N/A

Reigate & Banstead Borough Council 61 Traveller SHLAA 2017

Ref Site name Suitability Commentary Overall conclusion on Estimated Conclusion Availability/Achievability Capacity for the Blind, subject to The site comprises specialist care facilities and accommodation in Philanthropic Road, review of large grounds. Redhill Green Belt The site benefits from planning consent (reference 14/02562/F) for the redevelopment of the site to form 102 new dwellings in total, and pre-commencement planning conditions have been recently discharged. Given this consent, there is a reasonably high alternative use value associated with the site and traveller provision is therefore unlikely to be viable or affordable, and the site therefore is not considered to be available for traveller provision. EW13 Burnt Oak Farm, 26 Suitability This site is being promoted for residential (market) housing, and Not available/achievable N/A Woodhatch Road, subject to affordable housing, as part of the SHLAA/HELAA – the respondent Redhill review of did not tick the option for Traveller provision on the form. Green Belt EW12 Redhill Aerodrome Suitability The site is being promoted by a house builder. The site has been Not available/achievable N/A subject to identified as a potential safeguarded site so would not be available review of for traveller provision at this current time, as this could compromise Green Belt the delivery of the site should it be considered necessary for development needs in a subsequent Local Plan review. G14 Land at Fairacres,Axes Suitability The site is owned by a private individual. Not available/achievable N/A Lane, Salfords (2) subject to The landowner was contacted in July 2017 but no response was review of received. As such, the site is not available Green Belt KBH03 Rookery Farm, Mogador Suitability The site is owned by RBBC. Not available/achievable N/A Road, Lower Kingswood subject to The site was previously used as landfill and therefore remediation review of would be required in order to make the site suitable as a traveller Green Belt site. Based on discussions with Environmental Health Officers, remediation would be expensive given the comparatively recent landfilling. There is a real possibility that this would make traveller provision unviable. The landowner has confirmed that the site is not available for traveller provision. KBH04 Land at Holly Lane, Suitability The site is owned by RBBC. Not available/achievable N/A Banstead subject to The site comprises agricultural use. review of The landowner has confirmed that the site is not available for Green Belt traveller provision. KBH11 Land at Shrimps Field, Suitability The site is owned by a private individual. Not available/achievable N/A Chipstead Lane, subject to The site comprises semi-natural open space. Kingswood review of The landowner was contacted in December 2015, however, no Green Belt response was received, therefore it cannot be confirmed that the site is available for traveller provision. KBH18 Land north of Bonsor Suitability The site is owned by private individuals. Not available/achievable N/A

Reigate & Banstead Borough Council 62 Traveller SHLAA 2017

Ref Site name Suitability Commentary Overall conclusion on Estimated Conclusion Availability/Achievability Capacity Drive, Kingswood subject to The site comprises a paddock with associated buildings. review of The landowners’ agent was contacted in December 2015, and has Green Belt confirmed the site is not available for traveller provision. KBH19 Land east of Smithy Suitability The site is owned by a private trust and two other separate Not available/achievable N/A Lane, Lower Kingswood subject to landowners. review of The site comprises agricultural use. Green Belt The landowners’ agent was contacted in December 2015, and has confirmed the site is not available for traveller provision. KBH25 Land north of Chipstead Suitability The site is owned by a private individual. Not available/achievable N/A Lane, Kingswood subject to The site comprises amenity and grazing land. review of The landowner was contacted in December 2015, and has confirmed Green Belt the site is not available for traveller provision. KBH26 Land at Beechen Lane Suitability This site is being promoted for residential (market) housing, as part Not available/achievable N/A subject to of the SHLAA/HELAA – the respondent did not tick the option for review of Traveller provision on the form. Green Belt KBH28 Legal & General, Suitability The site is owned by Legal & General. Not available/achievable N/A Kingswood, Land parcel subject to The landowner has confirmed that the site is not available for 1 review of development at the present time. Green Belt KBH29 Legal & General, Suitability The site is owned by Legal & General. Not available/achievable N/A Kingswood, Land parcel subject to The landowner has confirmed that the site is not available for 2 review of development at the present time. Green Belt M14 Oakley Farm, 143 Suitability The site is owned by private individuals. Not available/achievable N/A Bletchingley Road, subject to The site comprises agricultural and grazing fields. Merstham review of The landowners’ agent was contacted in December 2015, and has Green Belt confirmed the site is not available for traveller provision. M17 Darby House, Suitability The site is owned by a house builder – Croudace Homes. Not available/achievable N/A Bletchingley Road, subject to There is an extant permission (reference 13/02147/OUT) for a Merstham review of residential development of c.20 homes and the landowner is in the Green Belt process of implementing this consent. Given this, and the likely value of the site in light of the consent, the site is not considered to be available or viable for traveller provision. M18 164 Bletchingley Road, Suitability The site is owned by a private individual and has previously been Not available/achievable N/A Merstham subject to promoted on their behalf by a private development company. review of The site comprises a residential dwelling in large grounds and former Green Belt agricultural uses. The landowner’s agent was contacted in April 2016 and has confirmed that the site would not be made available for traveller provision. M20 Land south of Darby Suitability The site is owned by a private development company. Not available/achievable N/A

Reigate & Banstead Borough Council 63 Traveller SHLAA 2017

Ref Site name Suitability Commentary Overall conclusion on Estimated Conclusion Availability/Achievability Capacity House, Bletchingley subject to The site comprises open grounds. Road, Merstham review of The landowner’s agent was contacted in December 2015 and has Green Belt confirmed that the site would not be made available for traveller provision. M21 Land north of Radstock Suitability The site is owned by RBBC. Not available/achievable N/A Way, Merstham subject to Parts of the site are actively used as public open space with some review of parts comprising woodland. Alternative provision of the open space Green Belt would be required if the site was released for traveller provision. However, alternative provision is not available at this time, therefore the site is not available for traveller provision. M26 Merstham Manor Suitability This site is being promoted for residential (market) housing, and Not available/achievable N/A Estate, Merstham subject to possibly office and retail, as part of the SHLAA/HELAA – the review of respondent did not tick the option for Traveller provision on the form. Green Belt RE19 Nutfield Lodge, Nutfield Suitability The site is owned by a local Masonic organisation and is actively Not available/achievable N/A Road, Redhill subject to used for community uses. review of The site comprises a community building in large grounds. Green Belt The site has been promoted on behalf of the landowner for residential development alongside re-provision of community uses. Given the intentions of the landowner to use part of the site for community provision and the need for residential development as enabling development, traveller provision is not considered to be viable or achievable. Furthermore, the landowner’s agent was contacted in December 2015, however, no response was received, therefore it cannot be confirmed that the site is available for traveller provision. RE20 Former Copyhold Suitability The site is owned by a strategic land developer. Not available/achievable N/A Works, Nutfield Road, subject to The site comprises derelict industrial buildings and woodland. Redhill review of The landowner was contacted in December 2015, however, no Green Belt response was received, therefore it cannot be confirmed that the site is available for traveller provision. RE22 Land at Hillsbrow, Suitability The site is owned by a private individual. Not available/achievable N/A Nutfield Road, Redhill subject to The site comprises semi-natural open space/woodland. review of The landowner was contacted in December 2015 and has confirmed Green Belt that the site not available for traveller provision. RE24 Land north of Nutfield Suitability The site is owned by a strategic land developer. Not available/achievable N/A Road (The Paddock), subject to The site comprises agricultural and grazing land. Redhill review of The landowner was contacted in December 2015, however, no Green Belt response was received, therefore it cannot be confirmed that the site is available for traveller provision. RE25 Land south of Nutfield Suitability The site is owned by a strategic house builder and leased to RBBC Not available/achievable N/A Road, Redhill subject to for use as allotments.

Reigate & Banstead Borough Council 64 Traveller SHLAA 2017

Ref Site name Suitability Commentary Overall conclusion on Estimated Conclusion Availability/Achievability Capacity review of If the site were to be released for traveller provision, alternative Green Belt allotment provision would need to be found by the Council, and alternative provision is not available at present. The landowner was contacted in December 2015, however, no response was received, therefore it cannot be confirmed that the site is available for traveller provision. SPW01 Land at Lonesome Suitability The site is owned by RBBC. Not available/achievable N/A Lane, Reigate subject to Parts of the site are actively used as public open space and parts as review of allotments. Alternative provision of both uses would be required if the Green Belt site was released for traveller provision. However, alternative provision is not available at this time, therefore the site is not available for traveller provision. SPW03 New Pond Farm, Suitability The site is owned by RBBC. Not available/achievable N/A Woodhatch Road, subject to There is an occupational lease to a third party. This lease would Reigate review of need to expire or be acquired if the site was to be made available for Green Belt traveller provision. The landowner has confirmed that the site is not available for traveller provision. SPW04 Land at Sandcross Suitability The site is owned by private individuals. Not available/achievable N/A Lane, Reigate subject to The site comprises agricultural use. review of The landowner was contacted in December 2015, however, is unable Green Belt to confirm at this stage whether the site would be made available for traveller provision, therefore it cannot be confirmed that the site is available for traveller provision. SPW05 Land at Dovers Farm, Suitability The site is owned by a local developer. Not available/achievable N/A Dovers Green Road, subject to The site comprises agricultural use. Reigate review of The landowner has confirmed that the site is not available for Green Belt traveller provision. SPW07 Land at Castle Drive, Suitability The site is owned by a private individual and there is third party Not available/achievable N/A Woodhatch subject to interest from a local registered affordable housing provider. review of The site comprises semi-natural open space and grazing land. Green Belt The landowner’s agent was contacted in December 2015, however, no response was received, therefore it cannot be confirmed that the site is available for traveller provision. SPW08 Hartswood Nursery, 146 Suitability The site is owned by a private individual. Not available/achievable N/A Doversgreen Road, subject to The site comprises semi-natural land (former nursery) with derelict Reigate review of structures and a residential dwelling. Green Belt The landowner’s agent was contacted in December 2015, however, no response was received, therefore it cannot be confirmed that the site is available for traveller provision. SPW10 Land at Hartswood Suitability The site is owned by a private trust. Not available/achievable N/A Farm / Flanchford Farm, subject to The site comprises agricultural fields.

Reigate & Banstead Borough Council 65 Traveller SHLAA 2017

Ref Site name Suitability Commentary Overall conclusion on Estimated Conclusion Availability/Achievability Capacity Reigate review of The landowner’s agent was contacted in December 2015, and has Green Belt confirmed that the site is not available for traveller provision. SPW11 Garage Block/Atherfield Suitability The site is owned by a local house builder who has promoted the site Not available/achievable N/A Barn, Woodhatch Road, subject to for residential development. Reigate review of The site comprises a derelict barn and hardstanding. Green Belt The landowner’s agent was contacted in December 2015 and has confirmed that they would not be willing to release the site for traveller provision. SPW16 ASD on the Green, Suitability This site is being promoted for accommodation for people with Not available/achievable N/A Lonesome Lane, subject to autism, and enabling development in the form of a hotel, as part of Reigate review of the SHLAA/HELAA – the respondent did not tick the option for Green Belt Traveller provision on the form. SPW18 Paddock 19, Dovers Suitability This site is being promoted for residential (market) housing, and self- Not available/achievable N/A Green Road subject to build and affordable housing, as part of the SHLAA/HELAA – the review of respondent did not tick the option for Traveller provision on the form. Green Belt SS02 Land to the west of Suitability The site is owned by a private individual and forms part of Bonehurst Not available/achievable N/A Bonehurst Road, subject to Farm. Salfords review of The site comprises agricultural and grazing land. Green Belt The landowner’s agent was contacted in December 2015 and has confirmed that they would not be willing to release the site for traveller provision. SS06 Land at Rosemary Suitability The site is owned by a private individual. Not available/achievable N/A Farm, Ironsbottom subject to The site comprises agricultural land. Road, Sidlow review of Given the existing predominantly agricultural use, there is a Green Belt reasonable likelihood that the site would be affordable for traveller provision. It has not been possible to contact the landowner to ascertain if the site would be made available for traveller provision. SS12 Land between Mason’s Suitability The site is owned by a regional developer, Quintain. Not available/achievable N/A Bridge Road / Picketts subject to The site comprises predominantly agricultural land but including Land and the railway, review of areas of open space and woodland. Salfords (Land east of Green Belt The landowner’s agent was contacted in December 2015 and has Salfords) confirmed that they would not be willing to release the site for traveller provision. SS15 Horley Place, Bonehurst Suitability The site is owned by a private individual. Not available/achievable N/A Road, Horley subject to The site comprises a hotel and grounds. review of The site benefits from recent planning consent reference 15/00631/F Green Belt for 2-storey extensions to the hotel, and whilst the site was previously promoted for development, this is no longer being pursued. The site is therefore not considered to be available for traveller

Reigate & Banstead Borough Council 66 Traveller SHLAA 2017

Ref Site name Suitability Commentary Overall conclusion on Estimated Conclusion Availability/Achievability Capacity provision. SS17 Land south of Copsleigh Suitability The site is owned by a private organisation. Not available/achievable N/A Avenue, Salfords subject to The site comprises grazing land and natural open space. review of The landowner’s agent was contacted in December 2015 and has Green Belt confirmed that the site would not be available for traveller provision. It is being actively promoted. SS22 Land at Bonehurst Suitability The site is owned by a private individual. Not available/achievable N/A Farm, Salfords subject to The site comprises agricultural land. review of The landowner’s agent was contacted in December 2015 and has Green Belt confirmed that the site would not be available for traveller provision. SS27 (part Field on Bonehurst Suitability This site is being promoted for residential (market) housing, as part Not available/achievable N/A of SS22) Road between subject to of the SHLAA/HELAA – the respondent did not tick the option for Cambridge Hotel and review of Traveller provision on the form. Lawson's Timber Yard, Green Belt Bonehurst Road, Horley TW1 16 Land at the Priory, Suitability This site is being promoted for residential (market) housing, as part Not available/achievable N/A Sturts Lane, Walton on subject to of the SHLAA/HELAA – the respondent did not tick the option for the Hill review of Traveller provision on the form. Green Belt US02 Land at Downs Way, 81 Suitability The site is owned by a local property developer. Not available/achievable N/A Kingswood Road, subject to The site comprises woodland, rough scrub, and grassland. Tadworth review of The landowner’s agent was contacted in December 2015 and has Green Belt confirmed that the site would not be available for traveller provision. US06 145 Sandcross Lane, Suitability The site is owned by a single landowner. Not available/achievable N/A Reigate subject to The site comprises agricultural land. review of The landowner was contacted in December 2015 and has confirmed Green Belt that the site would not be available for traveller provision.

Reigate & Banstead Borough Council 67 Traveller SHLAA 2017

5. Green Belt Reviews: Potential Sites

5.1 Of all of the sites that were sourced, assessed for suitability (tables 2 and 3), and found to be available and achievable (table 4); nine sites could potentially be considered for Traveller pitches and plots: three for Travelling Show-people plots, and six for gypsy & Traveller pitches. All of these sites are located in the Green Belt, and are set out in Table 5 below, along with the potential number of pitches or plots that could be accommodated by each site.

Table 5: Suitable and Available sites

Sites (plots) Potential plots G9a: Land at Fairacres, Axes Lane, Salfords (1) 1 plot G9b: Land at Fairacres, Axes Lane, Salfords (3) 4 plots G13: Land west of Plot 4, Fairacres, Axes Lane, 3 plots Salfords Sites (pitches) Potential pitches BV16: Land south of Woodmansterne Lane, Banstead Up to 15 pitches BV18: Land south of Croydon Lane, Banstead Up to 15 pitches G3: Woodlea Stables, Peeks Brook Lane, Horley 6 pitches G4: Treetops/Trentham, Peeks Brook Lane, Horley 1 2 pitch es G6: Land at Crossoak Lane/Picketts Lane, Salfords 10 pitches G12: Land at Kents Field, Rectory Lane, Chipstead 2 pitches

5.2 All of the potential sites are located within the Green Belt which is the least preferential location in terms of the Council’s sequential approach to finding land for development as set out in the Core Strategy. However because all other sites have been ruled out against absolute criteria, unsuitability, and lack of availability and/or achievability, it is necessary to consider these sites and examine the impacts of the sites upon the Green Belt.

5.3 This section assesses each of the remaining nine sites in regard to its relative importance to the Green Belt. Development is generally regarded by national policy as inappropriate in the Green Belt, although there are certain exceptions. However, national policy does clarify that exceptional circumstances can allow Green Belt boundaries to be altered. Core Strategy Policy CS16 states that the lack of any suitable, affordable and deliverable sites in the urban area or other countryside not covered by Green Belt could provide the exceptional circumstances necessary to justify alterations to Green Belt boundaries to meet a specific identified need for a Traveller site. Core Strategy CS3 also notes that:

‘In exceptional circumstances land may be removed from the Green Belt…Exceptional circumstances may exist where…there is no or limited conflict with the purposes and integrity of the Green Belt (clause 3b)’.

Reigate & Banstead Borough Council 68 Traveller TSLAA 2017

5.4 The methodology in the Development Management Plan: Green Belt Review evidence paper has been used for these Traveller site Green Belt assessments. A size limit of one hectare only has been applied to these assessments as set out in Stage 1 above. This resulted in site BV18 (land south of Croydon Lane, Banstead) being assessed as two separate sites, the split of the site informed by surrounding context, proximity of neighbouring development and roads, and defined physical boundaries.

5.5 Each of the sites set out in Table 5 above is reviewed below, and those that are considered not to have an unacceptable impact upon the purposes of the Green Belt are set out at Table 6.

Green Belt reviews:

Site G9a : Fairacres (1), Axes Lane, Salfords

Purpose 1: To check the unrestricted sprawl of large built -up areas This site is not contiguous to or contained within any settlement Moderate

Reigate & Banstead Borough Council 69 Traveller TSLAA 2017

(although it is contiguous to existing Traveller accommodation); it is importance detached from – and poorly related to – the existing settlement areas. to the Green Belt The boundary is strong, comprising of a separate residential curtilage to the south, dense tree belt to the east and north and a bund (and built form) to the west.

Taking account of the factors above, the parcel is considered to be of moderate importance to this purpose. Purpose 2: To prevent neighbouring towns from merging into one another This site lies on a line between the settlements of Nutfield (to the north- Lower east, and Horley, to the south-west). This line is approximately 4.72km importance from edge to edge of the settlements, and on this line the potential to the development measures approximately 58m. Green Belt

Removal of the site would still leave a wide gap of more than 2km (including in either direction from the site).

The gap would be closed by less than 15%.

The site is therefore considered to be lower importance to the Green Belt for this purpose against the criteria. Purpose 3: To assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment There has been encroachment into the Green Belt at this site, and Moderate enforcement procedures have required it to be reinstated to its original importance undeveloped form. As such, it is considered as open Green Belt and to the can be considered as less than 10% developed and therefore of higher Green Belt importance to the Green Belt for this purpose.

The boundaries of the site are strongly defined as set out above and would assist in preventing development encroachment into longer range views into the countryside.

Taken as a whole, the site is considered to be of moderate importance to the Green Belt for this purpose. Purpose 4: To preserve the setting and special character of historic towns There are no conservation areas in the vicinity of the site and as such it Lower plays no role in conserving historic character or setting, against the importance criteria of the Green Belt Review; therefore this site is regarded as to the having a lower importance to the Green Belt for this purpose. Green Belt Purpose 5: To assist in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land The “urban areas first” approach set out in Policy CS6 of the adopted Lower Core Strategy ensures that development on greenfield, Green Belt sites importance should not directly compete with viable and deliverable to the urban/regeneration opportunities . Green Belt Suitability Conclusion: This site is green field and separate from nearby settlements, but it also Final has good boundaries preventing visual encroachment and contributes Rating little to the prevention of coalescence. As such is can be regarded as Across All moderate in its importance to the Green Belt against the purposes. Purposes: Moderate importance to Green

Reigate & Banstead Borough Council 70 Traveller TSLAA 2017

Belt

Site G9b : Fairacres (3), Axes Lane, Salfords

Purpose 1: To check the unrestricted sprawl of large built -up areas This site is not contiguous to or contained within any settlement Moderate (although it will be contiguous to Traveller accommodation); it is importance detached from – and poorly related to – the existing settlement areas. to the Green Belt The boundary is strong; a dense tree belt is located to the east and south (and part of the west side) of the site and to the north and rest of the west side there are other plots currently being built out under a previous planning permission. The boundary contains the development as a whole, preventing sprawl.

Taking account of the factors above, the parcel is considered to be of moderate importance to this purpose. Purpose 2: To prevent neighbouring towns from merging into one another

Reigate & Banstead Borough Council 71 Traveller TSLAA 2017

This site lies on a line between the settlements of Nutfield (to the north- Lower east, and Horley, to the south-west). This line is approximately 4.63 km importance from edge to edge of the settlements, and on this line the potential to the development measures approximately 174m. Green Belt

Removal of the site would still leave a wide gap of more than 2km (including more than 2km to the north, and approximately 1.9 to the south).

The gap would be closed by less than 15%.

The site is therefore considered to be lower importance to the Green Belt for this purpose against the criteria. Purpose 3: To assist in safeguarding th e countryside from encroachment This site is undeveloped and less than 10% of the area is covered in Moderate urbanising features, in terms of the Green Belt Review criteria, meaning importance that the site is of higher importance to the Green Belt for this purpose. to the Green Belt The boundaries of the site are strongly defined as set out above and would assist in preventing development encroachment into longer range views into the countryside.

Taking account of the factors above, the site is considered to be of moderate importance to the Green Belt for this purpose. Purpose 4: To preserve the setting and special character of historic towns There are no conservation areas in the vicinity of the site and as such it Lower plays no role in conserving historic character or setting, against the importance criteria of the Green Belt Review; therefore this site is regarded as to the having a lower importance to the Green Belt for this purpose. Green Belt Purpose 5: To assist in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling o f derelict and other urban land The “urban areas first” approach set out in Policy CS6 of the adopted Lower Core Strategy ensures that development on greenfield, Green Belt sites importance should not directly compete with viable and deliverable to the urban/regeneration opportunities . Green Belt Suitability C onclusion Despite its location away from a settlement, and green field status, this Final site’s location on lines between settlements, and its strong boundary Rating features point to a lower-moderate contribution to the purposes of the Across All Green Belt overall as assessed against the DMP Green Belt Review Purposes: criteria. It is considered that it would be suitable to take this site forward Moderate for further consideration as a Traveller site within the Green Belt. Importance to Green Belt

Reigate & Banstead Borough Council 72 Traveller TSLAA 2017

G13 : Land west of Plot 4, Fairacres , Axes Lane, Salfords

Purpose 1: To check the unrestricted sprawl of large built -up areas None of the parcel is contiguous with the existing urban area and is Moderate largely detached from, and poorly related to, the existing urban importance concentration, which makes the site of higher importance to the Green to the Belt in regard to the criteria set out in the DMP Green Belt review Green Belt evidence paper.

The boundaries of the parcel are partially formed by strong features such as the tree line on the west and southern side. However, the parcel is mostly open to the countryside on the east boundary.

On balance the site is considered to have a moderate importance to the Green Belt for this purpose. Purpose 2: To prevent n eighbouring towns from merging into one another

Reigate & Banstead Borough Council 73 Traveller TSLAA 2017

This site lies on a line between Salfords, which is the nearest Lower settlement, and either Blindley Heath or South Godstone – the nearest importance settlements on a line from Salfords that crosses the site. This gap is to Green approximately 6. 5km, when taking a line from Salfords to the residential Belt area to the north of and attached to Blindley Heath. Removal of the site would therefore still leave a wide gap (as per the Green Belt Review criteria), and would lead to the existing gap being closed by less than 15%.

The site is therefore counted as of lower importance to the Green Belt for this purpose against the criteria in regard to the criteria set out in the DMP Green Belt review evidence paper. Purpose 3: To assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment The parcel is largely open space; less than 10% of the land area of the Higher parcel is covered by built form/urban features, which makes this site of importance higher importance to the Green Belt for this purpose in regard to the to Green DMP review criteria. Belt

The boundaries of the site are strongly defined by the tree line to the west; however the parcel is mostly open on the eastern side. The tree line further to the east and continuing to the south would prevent encroachment of development into longer range views into the countryside from the southern and eastern sides, however the parcel may still be relatively visible from the road to the north due to its extensive open eastern boundary.

On balance it is therefore considered that this site is of higher importance in regard to the criteria set out in the DMP Green Belt review evidence paper. Purpose 4: To preserve the setting and spec ial character of historic towns There are no conservation areas in the vicinity of the site and as such it Lower plays no role in conserving historic character or setting. The parcel is importance therefore regarded as having a lower importance to the Green Belt for to Green this purpose in the DMP Green Belt Review. Belt Purpose 5: To assist in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land The “urban areas first” approach set out in Policy CS6 of the adopted Lower Core Strategy ensures that development on greenfield, Green Belt sites importance should not directly compete with viable and deliverable to Green urban/regeneration opportunities. Belt Suitability Conclusion: This site is of higher importance to the Green Belt in terms of Final safeguarding the countryside from encroachment, whilst being of Rating moderate and lower importance for other purposes, including reduction Across All of a settlement gap. As such, it is considered to be of higher Purposes: importance to the purposes of the Green Belt. Higher importance to Green Belt

Reigate & Banstead Borough Council 74 Traveller TSLAA 2017

BV16: Land south of Woodmansterne Lane, Banstead

Purpose 1: To check the unrestricted sprawl of large built -up areas The parcel is partially contained – approximately 50% of the parcel is Moderate contiguous with the urban area along the northern and western importance boundaries of the parcel. to the Green Belt The boundaries of the site abutting neighbouring residential plots are strong and would largely contain sprawl. However, to the south, there is no boundary that would contain potential sprawl from development.

Taking account of the factors above, the parcel is considered to be of

Reigate & Banstead Borough Council 75 Traveller TSLAA 2017

moderate importance to this purpose, in regard to the criteria set out in the DMP Green Belt review evidence paper. Purpose 2: To prevent neighbouring towns from merging into one another The parcel lies between Banstead Village and Woodmansterne. The Higher gap is currently approximately 0.22km when taking the approximate importance distance from residential plots to the east in Woodmansterne Lane/Park to Green Road to residential plots in Chalmers Road to the west. If the parcel Belt did not remain open this would result in a reduced gap of 0.15km, equivalent to a reduction of approximately 32%.

Taking account of the factors above, the parcel is considered to be of higher importance to this purpose, in regard to the criteria set out in the DMP Green Belt review evidence paper. Purpose 3: To assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment The parcel is predominantly open agricultural land, with some man- Higher made fencing. Less than 10% of the land area of the parcel is covered importance by built form. to Green Belt Whilst the northern and western boundaries do abut residential plots, the extensive southern boundary of the site is not defined by any physical feature that would prevent physical/visual encroachment into the long range views currently available across the site into the countryside.

Taking account of the factors above, the parcel is considered to be of higher importance to this purpose, in regard to the criteria set out in the DMP Green Belt review evidence paper. Purpose 4: To preserve the setting and special character of historic towns The parcel is not directly adjacent to or in proximity of a historic town. Lower The north west corner of the site abuts the Conservation Area but the importance parcel itself plays little part in the setting or historic character of the to Green neighbouring conservation area. Belt

Taking account of the factors above, the parcel is considered to be of lower importance to this purpose, in regard to the criteria set out in the DMP Green Belt review evidence paper. Purpose 5: To assist in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land The “urban areas first” approach set out in Policy CS6 of the adopted Lower Core Strategy ensures that development on greenfield, Green Belt sites importance should not directly compete with viable and deliverable to Green urban/regeneration opportunities . Belt Suitability Conclusion: Whilst some of the boundary of the site is confined by residential Final development, the extensive southern boundary of the site is not Rating physically defined, and would not prevent physical sprawl of Across All development into the Green Belt, or prevent visual encroachment into Purposes: the long range views into the countryside. The site performs poorly Higher against Purposes 2 and 3 (in terms of suitability) and therefore fails the Importance suitability test and is excluded from further consideration for the to Green provision of Traveller accommodation. Belt

Reigate & Banstead Borough Council 76 Traveller TSLAA 2017

BV18: Land south of Croydon Lane, Banstead (Parcel Option A)

Purpose 1: To check the unrestricted sprawl of large built -up areas The parcel is not contained – none of the parcel is contiguous with the Higher existing urban area and is largely detached from, and poorly related to, importance the existing urban concentration. to Green Belt The boundaries of the parcel are partially formed by strong features such as residential curtilage and a dense tree line on the western side, but the parcel is open to the south.

Taking account of the factors above, the parcel is considered to be of higher importance to this purpose, in regard to the criteria set out in the DMP Green Belt review evidence paper.

Reigate & Banstead Borough Council 77 Traveller TSLAA 2017

Purpose 2: To prevent neighbouring towns from merging into one another When taking the approximate distance from the eastern edge of Moderate Banstead to the northern edge of Chipstead/Woodmansterne (1.46km), importance removal of the parcel would leave a reduced gap of less than 2km. to the Green Belt Due to its size and positioning removal of the parcel would lead to the existing gap being closed by less than 15% and the overall effect is limited due to other built form in the area.

Taking account of the factors above, the parcel is considered to be of moderate importance to this purpose, in regard to the criteria set out in the DMP Green Belt review evidence paper. Purpose 3: To assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment The whole parcel is open land with less than 10% of the land area of Higher the parcel covered by built form/urban features. importance to Green The boundaries of the parcel are partially formed by strong features Belt such as residential curtilage and mature hedging/trees to the north, west and east but open to the south. Although there is no physical boundary to the south, the western tree line and tree line further to the south would prevent encroachment into longer range views into the countryside.

Taking account of the factors above, the parcel is considered to be of higher importance to this purpose, in regard to the criteria set out in the DMP Green Belt review evidence paper. Purpose 4: To preserve the setting and special character of historic towns There are no conservation areas in the vicinity of the site and as such it Lower plays no role in conserving historic character or setting. The parcel is importance therefore regarded as having a lower importance to the Green Belt for to Green this purpose in the DMP Green Belt Review. Belt Purpose 5: To assist in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land The “urban areas first” approach set out in Policy CS6 of the adopted Lower Core Strategy ensures that development on greenfield, Green Belt sites importance should not directly compete with viable and deliverable to Green urban/regeneration opportunities. Belt Suitability Conclusion: This land parcel is important to the Green Belt both to prevent sprawl Final and to protect against encroachment into the countryside. The site Rating performs poorly against Purposes 1 and 3 (in terms of suitability) and Across All therefore fails the suitability test and is excluded from further Purposes: consideration for the provision of Traveller accommodation. Higher Importance to Green Belt

Reigate & Banstead Borough Council 78 Traveller TSLAA 2017

BV18: Land south of Croydon Lane, Banstead (Parcel Option B)

Purpose 1: To check the unrestricted sprawl of large built -up areas None of the parcel is contiguous with the existing urban area and is Higher largely detached from, and poorly related to, the existing urban importance concentration. to Green Belt The boundaries of the parcel are partially formed by strong features such as the road, and residential plot and tree line on the eastern side, but open on the remaining boundaries.

Taking account of the factors above, the parcel is considered to be of higher importance to this purpose, in regard to the criteria set out in the

Reigate & Banstead Borough Council 79 Traveller TSLAA 2017

DMP Green Belt review evidence paper.

Purpose 2: To prevent neighbouring towns from merging into one another When taking the approximate distance from the eastern edge of Moderate Banstead to the northern edge of Chipstead/Woodmansterne (1.46km), importance removal of the parcel would leave a reduced gap of less than 2km. to the Green Belt Due to its size and positioning removal of the parcel would lead to the existing gap being closed by less than 15% and the overall effect is limited due to other built form in the area.

Taking account of the factors above, the parcel is considered to be of moderate importance to this purpose, in regard to the criteria set out in the DMP Green Belt review evidence paper. Purpose 3: To assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment The whole parcel is open land with less than 10% of the land area of Higher the parcel covered by built form/urban features. importance to Green The extensive northern boundary is defined by the road, with a Belt residential plot and tree line on the eastern boundary. However, there are no physical boundaries on the west or southern side. The continuing tree lines on either side towards the south would to a certain extent prevent encroachment into longer range views into the countryside.

Taking account of the factors above, the parcel is considered to be of higher importance to this purpose, in regard to the criteria set out in the DMP Green Belt review evidence paper. Purpose 4: To preserve the setting and special character of historic towns There are no conservation areas in the vicinity of the site and as such it Lower plays no role in conserving historic character or setting. The parcel is importance therefore regarded as having a lower importance to the Green Belt for to Green this purpose in the DMP Green Belt Review. Belt Purpose 5: To assist in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land The “urban areas first” approach set out in Policy CS6 of the adopted Lower Core Strategy ensures that development on greenfield, Green Belt sites importance should not directly compete with viable and deliverable to Green urban/regeneration opportunities. Belt Suitability Conclusion: This land parcel is important to the Green Belt both to prevent sprawl Final and to protect against encroachment into the countryside. The site Rating performs poorly against Purposes 1 and 3 (in terms of suitability) and Across All therefore fails the suitability test and is excluded from further Purposes: consideration for the provision of Traveller accommodation. Higher Importance to Green

Reigate & Banstead Borough Council 80 Traveller TSLAA 2017

Belt

G3: Woodlea Stables, Peeks Brook Lane, Horley

Purpose 1: To check the unrestricted sprawl of large built -up areas None of the parcel is contiguous with the existing urban area and is Moderate largely detached from, and poorly related to, the existing urban importance concentration. to Green Belt The north and south boundaries of the parcel comprise strong features; mature woodland to the north and spread restricted on the southern side due to the presence of Woodlea Kennels. The other boundaries of the site to the west are not as strong, including some younger hedging, fencing and a small area open to the countryside. However, the hedging and fencing is doubled up. Given this, it is considered that the

Reigate & Banstead Borough Council 81 Traveller TSLAA 2017

boundaries are average.

Taking account of the factors above, the parcel is considered to be of moderate importance to this purpose, in regard to the criteria set out in the DMP Green Belt review evidence paper. Purpose 2: To prevent neighbouring towns from merging into one another When taking the approximate distance from west to east (edge of Lower Horley to edge of Smallfield) the gap is 1.32km. The removal of the importance parcel would not reduce the gap due to its size and position and would to Green leave a settlement gap. Belt

Removal of the parcel would lead to the existing gap being closed by less than 15%. Due to its size and positioning removal of the parcel would not affect the existing gap, and overall it would have a limited effect due to other built form in the area.

Taking account of the factors above, the parcel is considered to be of lower importance to this purpose, in regard to the criteria set out in the DMP Green Belt review evidence paper. Purpose 3: To assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment This site is currently an unauthorised Traveller site and the majority is Moderate covered in built form. Historic maps show that some form of man-made importance surface has been existent on this site since 2003, with units present to Green from circa 2006. Belt

The boundaries of the site are strongly defined by the road, woodland, and neighbouring kennels. However, the site is open to the countryside to the west, with only an insubstantial hedge around some of the boundary. The woodland further to the north, west, and south would to an extent prevent encroachment into longer range views into the countryside.

Taking account of the factors above, the parcel is considered to be of moderate importance to this purpose, in regard to the criteria set out in the DMP Green Belt review evidence paper. Purpose 4: To preserve the setting and special character of historic towns There are no conservation areas in the vicinity of the site and as such it Lower plays no role in conserving historic character or setting. The parcel is importance therefore regarded as having a lower importance to the Green Belt for to Green this purpose in the DMP Green Belt Review. Belt Purpose 5: To assist in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land The “urban areas first” approach set out in Policy CS6 of the adopted Lower Core Strategy ensures that development on greenfield, Green Belt sites importance should not directly compete with viable and deliverable to Green urban/regeneration opportunities. Belt Suitability Conclusion: As this site is unauthorised it has been treated as a greenfield site. Final Whilst the northern boundary of the parcel is undefined/open, the other Rating boundaries are strongly defined by a road, mature hedge line and Across All woodland. Although the northern boundary is open, the hedge line Purposes: further to the north, as well as the continuing tree line would help in Moderate prevention of the visual encroachment of development into the wider importance countryside. The site performs acceptably against all Green Belt to Green

Reigate & Banstead Borough Council 82 Traveller TSLAA 2017

purposes, and therefore passes the suitability test, and can be included Belt for further consideration for the provision of Traveller accommodation.

G4: Treetops/Trentham, Peek Brook Lane, Horley

Purpose 1: To check the unrestricted sprawl of large built -up areas

Reigate & Banstead Borough Council 83 Traveller TSLAA 2017

None of the parcel is contiguous with the existing urban area and is Moderate largely detached from, and poorly related to, the existing urban importance concentration. to Green Belt The boundaries of the parcel are formed by strong features: the roads on the east and west side (M23), woodland on the north side, and the residential curtilage on the southern side.

Taking account of the factors above, the parcel is considered to be of moderate importance to this purpose, in regard to the criteria set out in the DMP Green Belt review evidence paper. Purpose 2: To prevent neighbouring towns from merging into one another When taking the approximate distance from west to east (edge of Lower Horley to edge of Smallfield) the gap is 1.32km. The removal of the importance parcel would not reduce the gap due to its size and position and would to Green leave a settlement gap. Belt

Removal of the parcel would lead to the existing gap being closed by less than 15%. Due to its size and positioning removal of the parcel would not affect the existing gap, and overall it would have a limited effect due to other built form in the area.

Taking account of the factors above, the parcel is considered to be of lower importance to this purpose, in regard to the criteria set out in the DMP Green Belt review evidence paper. Purpose 3: To assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment This site is currently an unauthorised Traveller site and the majority is Moderate covered in built form. Historic maps show that some forms of man- importance made surface and units have been existent on this site since 2003. to Green Belt The boundaries of the site are strongly defined by the road, motorway, woodland, and neighbouring residential curtilage. The boundaries would assist in preventing development encroachment into longer range views into the countryside.

Taking account of the factors above, the parcel is considered to be of moderate importance to this purpose, in regard to the criteria set out in the DMP Green Belt review evidence paper. Purpose 4: To preserve the setting and special character of historic towns There are no conservation areas in the vicinity of the site and as such it Lower plays no role in conserving historic character or setting. The parcel is importance therefore regarded as having a lower importance to the Green Belt for to Green this purpose in the DMP Green Belt Review. Belt Purpose 5: To assist in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land The “urban areas first” approach set out in Policy CS6 of the adopted Lower Core Strategy ensures that development on greenfield, Green Belt sites importance should not directly compete with viable and deliverable to Green urban/regeneration opportunities. Belt Suitability Conclusion: As this site is unauthorised it has been treated as a greenfield site. Final Whilst the northern boundary of the parcel is undefined, the other Rating boundaries are strongly defined by a road, mature hedge line and Across All woodland. Whilst the northern boundary is open, the hedge line further Purposes:

Reigate & Banstead Borough Council 84 Traveller TSLAA 2017

to the north, as well as the continuing tree line would help in prevention Moderate of the visual encroachment of development into the wider countryside. Importance The site performs acceptably against all Green Belt purposes, and to Green therefore passes the suitability test, and can be included for further Belt consideration for the provision of traveller accommodation.

Reigate & Banstead Borough Council 85 Traveller TSLAA 2017

G6: Land at Crossoak Lane/Picketts Lane, Salfords

Purpose 1: To check the unrestricted sprawl of large built -up areas None of the parcel is contiguous with the existing urban area and is Higher largely detached from, and poorly related to, the existing urban importance concentration. to Green Belt The boundaries of the parcel are partially formed by strong features such as the road on the east side, woodland on the west side, and hedge on the southern boundary. The parcel is open on the northern boundary.

Taking account of the factors above, the parcel is considered to be of higher importance to this purpose, in regard to the criteria set out in the DMP Green Belt review evidence paper. Purpose 2: To prevent neighbouring towns from merging into one another When taking the approximate distance from north to south (southern Lower edge of South Earlswood to northern edge of Horley) the gap is more importance

Reigate & Banstead Borough Council 86 Traveller TSLAA 2017

than 2km. The removal of the parcel would not reduce the gap due to to Green its size and position. Belt

Due to its size and positioning removal of the parcel would not affect the existing gap, and overall it would have a limited effect due to other built form in the area.

Taking account of the factors above, the parcel is considered to be of lower importance to this purpose, in regard to the criteria set out in the DMP Green Belt review evidence paper. Purpose 3: To assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment This land parcel is largely open. The only development on the site is Higher electricity pylons, and as such there is less than 10% of the land area importance of the parcel covered by built form/urban features. to Green Belt The boundaries of the site are strongly defined by the road, mature hedge, and woodland. Only the northern boundary is open although the hedge further to the north would to a certain extent prevent encroachment into longer range views into the countryside, as would the continuing tree line and road.

It is considered on balance that, due to the lack of development on the site, it is of higher importance to the Green Belt, in regard to the criteria set out in the DMP Green Belt review evidence paper. Purpose 4: To preserve the setting and special character of historic towns There are no conservation areas in the vicinity of the site and as such it Lower plays no role in conserving historic character or setting. The parcel is importance therefore regarded as having a lower importance to the Green Belt for to Green this purpose in the DMP Green Belt Review. Belt

Purpose 5: To assist in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land The “urban areas first” approach set out in Policy CS6 of the adopted Lower Core Strategy ensures that development on greenfield, Green Belt sites importance should not directly compete with viable and deliverable to Green urban/regeneration opportunities. Belt

Suitability Conclusion: Whilst the northern boundary of the parcel is undefined, the other Final boundaries are strongly defined by a road, mature hedge line and Rating woodland. Whilst the northern boundary is open, the hedge line further Across All to the north, as well as the continuing tree line would help in prevention Purposes: of the visual encroachment of development into the wider countryside. Higher Nonetheless, this site is of high importance to two purposes of the importance Green Belt (purposes 1 and 3) regarding checking sprawl and to Green encroachment into the countryside. On balance it is considered that Belt the site is of higher importance to the Green Belt and this site should therefore not be taken forward for consideration as a Traveller site.

Reigate & Banstead Borough Council 87 Traveller TSLAA 2017

G12: Land at Kents Field, Rectory Lane, Chipstead

Purpose 1: To check the unrestricted sprawl of large built -up areas None of the parcel is contiguous with the existing urban area, although Moderate the site is relatively close to the existing urban concentration. importance to the The boundaries of the parcel are partially formed by strong features; Green Belt the tree line and road on the east side, as well as the authorised site on the north side. However, the site is open on the west side and spread may also occur to the south, due to the insubstantial hedge line, hardstanding, and derelict buildings. Given this, it is considered that the boundaries are average.

On balance this site is considered to have moderate importance in regard to this purpose of the Green Belt in regard to the criteria set out

Reigate & Banstead Borough Council 88 Traveller TSLAA 2017

in the DMP Green Belt review evidence paper. Purpose 2: To prevent neighbouring towns from merging into one another The distance from the settlement to the north (Tonbridge Close, Moderate Woodmansterne) and to the south (edge of Chipstead) is less than 1km importance (0.63km). However, removal of the parcel would have limited impact to the on the gap due to its size and position, and other built form. Green Belt

On balance this site is considered to have moderate importance in regard to this purpose of the Green Belt in regard to the criteria set out in the DMP Green Belt review evidence paper. Purpose 3: To assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment Less than 10% of the land area of the parcel is covered by built Moderate form/urban features. importance to the The boundaries of the parcel are partially formed by strong features; Green Belt the tree line and road on the east side, as well as the authorised site on the north side. However, the site is open on the west side and spread may also occur to the south, due to the insubstantial hedge line, hardstanding, and derelict buildings. The tree line further to the west and south screening residential development may prevent encroachment of development into longer range views into the countryside.

On balance this site is considered to have moderate importance in regard to this purpose of the Green Belt in regard to the criteria set out in the DMP Green Belt review evidence paper. Purpose 4: To preserve the setting and special character of historic towns There are no conservation areas in the vicinity of the site and as such it Lower plays no role in conserving historic character or setting. The parcel is importance therefore regarded as having a lower importance to the Green Belt for to Green this purpose in the DMP Green Belt Review. Belt Purpose 5: To assist in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land The “urban areas first” approach set out in Policy CS6 of the adopted Lower Core Strategy ensures that development on greenfield, Green Belt sites importance should not directly compete with viable and deliverable to Green urban/regeneration opportunities. Belt

Suitability Conclusion: The boundary’s tree line would help in prevention of the visual Final encroachment of development into the wider countryside. The site Rating performs acceptably against all Green Belt purposes, and therefore Across All passes the suitability test, and can be included for further consideration Purposes: for the provision of traveller accommodation. Moderate Importance to Green Belt

Reigate & Banstead Borough Council 89 Traveller TSLAA 2017

Suitable site for further consideration

Table 6: Sites suitable for further consideration as Traveller sites

Site Estimated Capacity G9a: Land at Fairacres, Axes Lane, Salfords (1) 1 plot G9b: Land at Fairacres, Axes Lane, Salfords (3) 4 plots G3:Woodlea Stables, Peeks Brook Lane, Horley Up to 4 pitches G4:Treetops/Trentham, Peeks Brook Lane, Up to 2 pitches Horley G12:Land at Kents Field, Rectory Lane, Up to 2 pitches Chipstead Up to 8 pitches /5 plots

Need and Supply 5.6 Table 6 above sets out the sites which are considered to be suitable for consideration as Traveller sites, along with potential plot or pitch numbers.

5.7 As set out in paragraph 2.17 above, 23 pitches and 3 plots would be necessary to provide sufficient accommodation to meet five year needs.

5.8 5 plots have been identified that could come forward in the next five years which would effectively deliver the whole need until the end of the plan period for Travelling Show-people. However only 8 pitches have been identified for Gypsy and Traveller accommodation, leaving a shortfall of 15 pitches against the five year housing need figure.

5.9 The borough of Reigate & Banstead is heavily constrained by features such as flooding, AONB, heritage assets and protected nature sites. Even so, almost 300 sites have been identified and assessed for potential Traveller sites to demonstrate that a thorough approach has been taken to identifying potential sites and a robust assessment has been applied as set out above. Whilst a five year supply cannot currently be demonstrated, the measures taken to address this have been thorough, proportionate and appropriate.

5.10 This is reflective of the situation for non-Traveller housing; Reigate & Banstead Borough Council demonstrated at the Core Strategy stage that it was not able to meet its objectively assessed need of 640 homes a year and the target was set at 460 homes a year recognising the level of constraint.

Reigate & Banstead Borough Council 90 Traveller TSLAA 2017

6. Assessment: Potential of Broad Locations

Sustainable Urban Extensions (SUEs)

5.9 PPTS requires that Local Plans should identify a supply of specific developable sites or broad locations for growth for years 6 to 10 and, where possible, broad locations for growth for years 11-15 of the plan period. In accordance with the NPPG 2 broad locations can include potential urban extensions.

5.10 The draft Regulation 19 DMP document includes 12 Urban Extension sites which are potentially suitable for Traveller provision, since national planning policy encourages the delivery of Traveller sites in sustainable locations, along with integration and co-existence with the settled community. By their nature, the urban extension sites are on the edge of settlements, and therefore also have the potential to provide the more rural/semi-rural location often preferred by Travellers.

5.11 This approach finds favour with the PPTS and Designing Traveller Sites Guidance which both promote the importance of integrating Traveller provision within mixed communities. The latter also specifically encourages Councils to consider opportunities for Traveller provision on major new housing developments.

5.12 The housing trajectory prepared to support the draft Regulation 19 DMP document indicates that urban extensions will be required from 2022 onwards. The projected timescales for the commencement of SUEs means that they provide only a longer term opportunity to meet Traveller accommodation needs. Nevertheless, it is considered appropriate to evaluate what potential may exist to provide Traveller accommodation on SUEs over the plan period.

5.13 In assessing the potential capacity which might realistically be provided as part of SUEs, there are a number of factors to consider, which include:

• The need to ensure that the ability of the broad areas to provide the requisite amount of conventional housing is not compromised; • The need to ensure that provision would not make sites unviable; and • The need to ensure that the scale of Traveller provision would not be disproportionate to, or dominate, established settled communities, particularly once any existing sites are taken into account.

2 https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/planning-practice-guidance

Reigate & Banstead Borough Council 91 Traveller TSLAA 2017

5.14 In addition, there is evidence that the greatest preference of the Traveller community is that for family sites; limited interest was shown in larger mixed sites. There is also a preference for private sites. Therefore, it is more practical that sites provide no more than 3 to 4 pitches (most appropriate for a single/extended family).

5.15 Provision of land for Traveller accommodation within SUEs will reduce the developable area for conventional housing. As stated above there is a need to ensure that, coupled with other policy requirements, this additional burden would not compromise the achievement of viable development on any site. It is therefore considered that a proposed rate of 1 pitch per 70 homes would present a viable rate of delivery (this rate is considered to represent a cost equivalent to approximately 2% of total development costs – including land and profit) – see the viability report for more information . This will be rounded up or down to the nearest pitch.

5.16 The table below (Table 7) sets out the housing figures considered most appropriate to be deliverable for each site, for all SUE sites identified within the draft Regulation 19 DMP document, along with the number of pitches these would provide, based on the rate above.

Table 7: Potential delivery of pitches/plots through Sustainable Urban Extensions

Broad Location Site No. No. of No. of Pitches Homes Achievable Deliverable East Redhill ERM1 100 1

ERM2/ERM3 210 3 East Merstham ERM5 95 1 S&SW Reigate SSW2 260 3

SSW9 100 1

Horley NWH1 75 1 SEH4 70 1 910 homes 11 pitches

Reigate & Banstead Borough Council 92 Traveller TSLAA 2017